Asbestos. Westminster Hall debates. Tuesday, 28 June 2005

Paul Rowen (Rochdale, LDem)

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss asbestos-related issues in an Adjournment debate. I shall refer to a particular site in my constituency, the former Turner and Newall site in the Spodden valley, although the issues range much wider.

I am grateful to hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle), for their work on the issue of asbestos pollution. I want to build on that work by examining in particular how asbestos pollution applies to the development and regeneration of former asbestos factory sites.

I shall talk in particular about the lack of scientifically authoritative environment and health standards on asbestos in soil, rubble and the air, to which the developer and local planning authorities can work and which they can use to make risk assessments. I shall also talk about the problems with the detection limits of current analysis methods for asbestos in soil, and about the long latency period of between 10 and 50 years before mesothelioma is developed as a result of exposure, which means that we will not know whether any site has been developed safely for many years.

I shall also discuss the fact that the onus is placed on the developer of any proposed development to furnish evidence and for the local authority to challenge and check that evidence. That can present opportunities for unscrupulous developers to downplay the problems. That has happened with the Turner and Newall site, as I shall demonstrate. Finally, I shall also talk about the lack of clarity surrounding the jurisdiction of enforcement agencies.

Current guidance for dealing with contaminated land sites is covered in part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and in planning policy statement 23, which states that local planning authorities

"should recognise that the development process is often the most effective way of achieving action to remove unacceptable risks arising from the contaminated state of land."

I concur, provided that some of the concerns that I have mentioned can be addressed.

The Turner and Newall site in my constituency is currently the subject of a planning application. The Turner and Newall factory was the world's first and largest asbestos factory; it had 72 acres and was the headquarters of the entire multinational conglomerate until 1948. Production began in 1879 and ceased in 1996. Incredibly large quantities of waste dust were dumped on the site and in surrounding areas. Some of it is still present. For example, a 1957 Turner Brothers Asbestos document confirms that 300 tonnes a year of filtered air dust was collected.

The potential sources of asbestos contamination in the Spodden valley site are as follows: asbestos waste dumped throughout the site; the demolition of the asbestos factory buildings-some have been demolished, but others are still present; disturbing soil on the site, which might be affected by decades of asbestos fallout; and the contamination of controlled waters, especially from flooded mine working.

MMC and Countryside Properties have submitted an application to build 650 houses on the site. The application is currently the subject of an independent review commissioned by Rochdale metropolitan borough council.

I should like to show how the five issues that I mentioned at the start of my speech can have an impact on decisions taken at this site and others. The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published soil guideline values for some common contaminants in soil, but it states in contaminated land report 8 that SGVs are not currently envisaged for asbestos. Why not? If any asbestos waste contains 0.1 per cent. by weight, it is classified as special waste, which must be disposed of accordingly. Guidance note 64/85 from the inter-departmental committee on the redevelopment of contaminated land states:

"Concentrations of respirable fibres of asbestos in soil as low as 0.001 per cent. by weight may in loose dry soils give rise to measurable levels of asbestos fibres if disturbed."

At the request of residents, the Health and Safety Commission recently tested rubble from parts of the factory buildings on the site. Of the eight samples tested, three confirmed the existence of asbestos of up to 1 per cent., which is 10 times higher than the proportion ensuring that waste is classed as special waste. Yet in his planning submission, the developer stated:

"Of particular note is the absence of any asbestos contamination";

and in a meeting with local councillors earlier this year, he and his expert witness said that the tests on the rubble had all been negative. For the past 10 months, open wagons have been transporting that rubble around the borough to unknown places, and subject to no control. That brings me to my second point about the testing regime. The guidance suggests the use of polarised light microscopy, but that can detect levels of contamination only at 1 per cent.; it does not deal with contamination of 0.1 per cent. or 0.01 per cent. If we are to assess the level of contamination accurately at such sites, we urgently need guidance that sets safe levels and uses a different method of detection, such as electron microscopy.

The third point is the long latency period. We will not know for between 10 and 50 years whether the decisions made now are right. The Cape asbestos factory in Barking is a good example. It was demolished in the 1970s to make way for the Hart Lane estate, but we are now hearing of deaths caused by mesothelioma among residents. My source for that information was the 2003 ITV documentary, "Toil of Death".

The stakes are high in any planning application. This case involves a development costing up to £100 million for which the developer has so far paid Rochdale council a £5,500 planning application fee. For that, the council is expected to carry out all the checks and controls to ensure that the developer is acting honourably. Again, I refer to the fact that the developer said:

"Of particular note is the absence of any asbestos contamination".

That is simply not accepted by local residents, many of whom have lived, worked and played in the area all their lives. We know that asbestos has been dumped on the site; we know that it pervades some of the buildings; and we know that if the site is to be developed safely, as everyone wants, proper planning controls and guidance must be given. The lack of guidance on safe levels of asbestos in the soil and air, and on the methods of testing, is hindering the development of this and future sites.