'I don’t trust developers’ says councillor as Telford & Wrekin Council shifts to new approach to contaminated land
A Newport councillor has warned of what he sees as the risks of relying on developers to deal with contaminated land, as Telford & Wrekin Council shifts its approach to the issue.
Telford & Wrekin Council is preparing to consult on its first refreshed Contaminated Land Strategy in 12 years following the completion of a review of potential sites.
It now proposes to “shift” to managing polluted sites through the planning process.
The council’s “initial stance” on inspection will be that “the land is not contaminated land until such time as there is sufficient information to demonstrate that it is”.
It is also seeking to take a “proactive” and “proportionate” approach where issues of blight are balanced with other issues.
A meeting of the council’s environment scrutiny committee on Wednesday (October 22) was told that although there are “pockets of contaminated land in the borough” none fall under a complex legal definition described by the Environmental Protection Act.
Until July 2025 a former chemical works at Agropharm Ltd, Overley Hill, near Wellington, was the only site in the borough identified as meeting the legal definition of contaminated land.
It had been polluting an aquifer with the potential to pollute a more important water source, the committee was told.
But the committee was told that it has been taken off the list after the Environment Agency and the landowner were able to “demonstrate why this land is no longer considered to meet the definition of contaminated land”.
The new strategy says that it is “possible” that there are more contaminated sites that meet the legal definitions. The council will still be able to use the law if needed.
The committee heard that the redevelopment of previously developed land and the associated planning process will be the council’s main approach to dealing with contaminated land.
“It is through this process that many sites in the borough and the UK as a whole have been assessed and remediated to ensure suitability for use,” a report to the committee said.
“It is likely that both voluntary remediation and the planning regime will remain important contributors to dealing with contamination in the borough.”
But Councillor Tim Nelson (Conservative, Newport North) told the meeting that he had experience of developers not doing what they need to do.
Councillor Nelson warned that he would be “very, very cautious about putting the emphasis on the planning process”.
“I don’t trust developers from the evidence of my own eyes in Newport.”
He said it was a matter of “asking the public to trust developers”.
Councillor Nelson claimed that because of the borough’s industrial history “we can assume there is contamination practically everywhere” although it may not meet the legal definition.
And he warned of the need to be aware of a new string of contaminants including microplastics, the sex hormone oestrogen, and dioxins.
A council officer thanked Councilllor Nelson for his “valid points” which they will “take away”.
Once finalised and approved, the draft Contaminated Land Strategy will replace the existing strategy that was developed in 2013. The new strategy will cover 2025-2030.
