Home > Press releases >

Making life better for people by inspiring solutions to environmental problems

2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994

IS YOUR NEW HOME 'UNSAFE AS HOUSES'? "Flagship" Brownfield Housing Scheme Faces Crisis.

12 Jan 2000

The methods used to develop a large contaminated London site into a “flagship” housing project are exposed in a new report launched today. Unsafe as Houses, by Friends of the Earth and the Enfield Lock Action Group Association, looks at the redevelopment of the former Royal Small Arms Factory site (RSAF) in Enfield, North London, by Labour-controlled Enfield Council and property developer Fairview New Homes Plc [1].

The 160 page report concludes that the Government's vision of an 'urban renaissance'could fail because of weaknesses in local government, the planning system and housing development [2]. It also serves as a campaign guide for communities facing similar development plans and wanting to protect their health and financial interests.

The report lists a string of incidents from the time the site was sold by the Ministry of Defence in 1984 to the present day. Key local and national issues identified in the report are:
The Enfield RSAF saga

• planning permission being given before key questions about contamination and radiation on site, and how these would be dealt with, were answered;
  
• the developer starting work on site without presenting a complete strategy for dealing with contamination;
• the developer carrying out some work on site without planning permission;
• the role of some Council officials in “steamrollering” planning permission;
• years of health and safety threats, including possible contamination of local drinking water with phenols;
• homes being built on a 'flagship' housing development for the south east without local facilities such as a local school, shops, transport services;
• 'good practice advice' from the Environment Agency making no noticeable difference to decision making over the re-development;
• poor information going to tenants and homeowners about action being taken to deal with contamination and the possible liabilities they could face; and,
• the Government's concoction of an ad-hoc arrangement for dealing with community concerns about contamination and decision making.  
  

National Implications:

• the system for deciding planning applications (especially those involving the re-development of contaminated sites for housing) depends entirely on information supplied by developers and their paid consultants - there is little or no independent verification (except by local authorities);
• local authorities charged with deciding planning applications are often under-resourced, under pressure and lacking in sufficient 'in-house' expertise to deal with complex matters such as land contamination;
• the Land Use Planning System is a barrier to public participation with still no 'third party right of appeal' to intervene between a council and a deve loper; and,
• the organisation perhaps best placed to act as a truly independent assessor of planning applications - the Government's Environment Agency - remains toothless and poorly resourced with no real role in contaminated land issues.
     
  Commenting Paul de Zylva of Friends of the Earth London said:
      “If the sorry story of the RSAF development is typical of the way homes will be built on Britain's brownfield sites then the Government's plan for an urban renaissance is in deep trouble. How can anyone be confident that homes being built on contaminated land will be safe if what has happened in Enfield is repeated in town halls across Britain and local people are left carrying the can for pollution?We need a public inquiry into the whole RSAF saga, and the Government needs to act fast to put the recommendations in our 'Unsafe As Houses' report into effect.”
  
  Beth Pedder, co-author and Vice Chair of Enfield Lock Action Group Association said:
      “We have been abused and ignored over the RSAF saga for too long. In the end,our faith in local government, the fairness of the planning system and in so called'experts' ran out. Our legitimate concerns about the developer's standards of clean up and remediation have been cast aside, even when backed by independent specialists. The system for making planning decisions and assessing developers'plans is rotten. Officials and 'experts' are always fallible so the system must have proper checks and balances for the sake of all those people who will call these reclaimed sites home. I hope our efforts will help other communities avoid similar problems and help protect their health, environment and financial interests.”
  
  NOTES TO EDITORS

Unsafe as Houses - Urban Renaissance or Toxic Timebomb?
Exposing the methods and means of building Britain's homes on contaminated land
£12.95 Available from Friends of the Earth, Tel: 020 7490 1555 (ISBN 1 85750 329 5)

[1]    The former RSAF site at Enfield Lock, North London has been earmarked as a 'flagship', 100 acre brownfield development by the Government and a test of how to reclaim contaminated land for new homes in the overcrowded south east of England, the region most under pressure for new homes.

[2]    There is growing disquiet at proposals to build 1.1 million new homes by 2016 in the South East. The Government appointed panel set up to examine draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South East recommended on 8th October 1999 that councils outside London should plan for 1,098,500 new homes between 1996 and 2016, with half built on 'brownfield' sites.

Copyright © Friends of the Earth | Contact Us |
Support Friends of the Earth