Poisoned land - soil by homes contaminated
Poisonous chemicals have been discovered in the soil on part of a housing estate.
About 30 gardens in Wigston's Little Hill estate have been found to have quantities of potentially harmful toxins above recommended levels.
-

Homeowners have been served with a legal notice saying the land is contaminated.
Consultants have been brought in to look at how any potential health risks can be removed.
Oadby and Wigston Borough Council today stressed the health risks were very slight, but said it could not rule out the possibility that the levels of chemicals found might cause "significant possibility of significant harm".
Stephen Bruce, the council's head of environmental health, said: "There is a low risk but that doesn't mean there is no risk.
"There are possible health implications from long-term contact with this.
"We have asked residents if they have suffered any illnesses, they have not. We also have no records of any clusters of illnesses in that area."
Residents have been issued with advice which includes not letting children play with the soil, making sure soil is not brought into the house by leaving dirty shoes outside and not wearing soiled clothes indoors.
In 2006, 58 households in Salcombe Close, part of Pochins Close and a handful of homes in Launceston Road were warned they could be at risk of contamination because their homes were built on land which used to be Great Wigston Gasworks.
The gasworks, on the site for 100 years, extracted gas from coal – a process which left behind chemicals including coal tar derivatives and heavy metals such as lead.
Tests have found about 30 of the properties had higher than recommended levels of these chemicals in the soil. The borough council would not reveal which properties are affected.
Homes, roads and paths are not a risk as the chemicals remain locked in.
Experts said the main ways of tackling the problem were to inject chemicals into the soil to counteract the poisons or to dig out a deep layer of soil, put in a seal layer and add clean topsoil.
A council spokesman said the authority was pursuing all avenues for funding remedial works and was keeping residents fully informed.
One resident of Pochins Close said: "The council has been up-front, but it is clear it cannot make any promises about the risks or how quickly it will all be sorted."
Since 2000, councils have been required to identify sites which could pose an environmental risk under the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations.
Before that, there was no need for a developer to investigate whether a site was contaminated.







2 Comments
by barry smith, Mowmacre hill
Tuesday, March 24 2009, 12:45PM
“On the result of seeing the coverage last night I was curious to hear that one recommendation was to wash hands after gardening but then I read that chemicals maybe used to counter the poisonous chemicals.
How many of the residents have been growing their own in this soil.
Surely a survey was carried out on this land and some indicators of contamination would alert those people or is it I'm alright jack just give me the money.”
by gareth, oadby
Monday, March 23 2009, 2:22PM
“developers have had responsibility to investigate the suitability of a site since the town and country planning act 1974 it can be argued that this includes contamination.
The requirement for a developer to investigate contaminated land and the council to ensure it done was brought in in Nov 1994 with the publication of planning policy statement 23 planing and pollution control annex 2: development on land effected by contamination.
The council has investigated the site under part 2A of the environmental protection act 1990 which added to the act by the environment act 1995 and became a statutory requirement in April 2000.
If the council cannot rule out the possibility of "significant possibility of significant harm" this shows that further investigative works are needed as the "possibility" of a significant possibility does not fall within the definition of "contaminated land" to fall within the definition of contaminated land the council will need to show by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that¿
(a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or
(b) pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused;”