[Closed] Would you live on the site of an old aluminium processing plant?

As you say, I'd imagine SEPA will be all over it, and the known contaminants. Much of the new housing in the East end of Glasgow (and the M74 extension) is built on industrial land from an era that wasn't as good at keeping records, caused a bit of a stooshie at the time, but I believe it was settled.

Talk of building houses on the old Nobel explosives site on the Ardeer peninsula in Ayshire, **** that, they used to blow old buildings up in there, as they never knew what was buried around them.

Don’t worry you’ll soon forget about it.

Planning docs for the site might show what environmental testing/remediation was carried out post decomissioning.

But no, you're not being irrational in the slightest. How long since it closed down? There is evidence of build-up of contaminants in the areas surrounding a working plant.

eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132408/

Don’t worry you’ll soon forget about it.

👏😃

I used to live on a former atomic weapons establishment, so a bit of Alu would hold little fear.

Perhaps the only surprising thing was out of all of our neighbours, only I knew about it and anyone else assumed that the letter we all got asking us not to grow fruit or veg in our gardens was some sort of weird by-law from way back when.

It was merely 80 tonnes of depleted uranium they removed.

I live on a former industrial site (used since the 1800’s -1980ish; became houses early 90s).

Mortgage provider insisted on a land remediation insurance policy being taken out). I think it cost £300 ish. Previous owners hadn’t needed this; it is transferable to a new owner. I’d assume for something more recently converted you would have lower risk / less cost.

Check the small print on the house details or sale conditions.
An estate near where I live was built on the site of an old power station and householders are strongly advised not to grow deep-rooted fruit trees or any root vegetables. That would be enough to put me off.

As well as any remediation work typically they would put a membrane down then cover it with at least 600mm of imported topsoil hence the no trees thing I’d imagine.

@dove1 sound like elevated levels of TPH (hydrocarbons), probably from coal.

In a past life I was a Geo-environmental consultant. Before the site was built on there would have been a desk study which would have highlighted the previous use and risk of contamination. Based on this, there would have been a ground investigation where holes would been drilled and samples taken. The report based on these samples would have shown that there was no significant risk to human health and therefore the land could be built on.

Not sure about the stream, probably wouldn't investigate groundwater unless the site was situated on a major aquifer.

Maybe try and get a copy of the ground investigation report? I'm sure it will say "elevated levels of x and y" (there are always elevated levels of something) and the magic words "no significant risk to human health".

Mick

Not irrational, no. I've a friend who has got done on their new build for contaminants despite it having been passed as safe in the way geomickb describes.

They bought a new build on the site of an old filter factory (Cooper's, next to Waitrose in Abergavenny for those that know the area) and they specifically asked about the ground as they wanted to have a small veg patch at the bottom of their (small) garden. They were assured that the ground was fine for that, it just had a no trees clause that they were told was because it was due to the bank at the rear being structural and a flood bank. The first crop they grew were fine but tasted strange. It was when talking to the rep on site (they bought and moved in during first phase of construction of the site) that they found out that there was a 'no growing food' clause in the later plots due to oils and other chemicals found in the ground. They had their plot tested again but it was still found to be safe, but by now they didn't want to grow anything there that they would eat. They now have built up wooden planters with imported soil, which take up half the garden so it's impacted their family space quite badly.

I'd have a long think about how you intend to use the ground and whether a 'no veg/trees' clause would affect you living there.

I'm a geo environmental consultant too and agree with what Nick says.

After all the tests have been carried out by the ground investigation, a planning condition would have been in place to make sure remediation was carried out. The council need two reports, one saying what remediation will take place, and after they and possibly SEPA (although they only tend to concern themselves with groundwater and surface water, soil posing a risk to human health is the council's responsibility) have approved that plan and it's been carried out they will the second report that validates the work, proving that it was successful. This has to be produced by a company independent of the remediation contractor.

Remediation might mean removing the contaminant using oxidizing chemicals or bacteria that eat hydrocarbons, but with heavy metals it's more likely to mean that soil has been taken away or a layer of at least 600mm of clean imported topsoil has been put down, possibly with a solid membrane or gravel layer under it to stop roots getting through.

Fife council's contaminated land officers are very good and will have wanted to see a high standard of remediation here. You may be able to find the reports on Fife Council's planning portal (Google it and use the map function to find the site) but the application may be too old. If that is the case call the Environmental Health team at the council and ask to speak to a contaminated land officer who should be able to tell you what they approved.

If you want a hand with it send me a PM, I suspect it's a sight my company is familiar with.

I've not heard of a site in the last few years that's had a no fruit and veg clause but I can imagine older site having them.

Locally a certain area of "tar pits" is being touted for 1200 houses, I could be involved with a "bit of land" just further up the road for insustrial use. The hoops/testing/remidiation etc that you have to jump through would seem endless but the nimbys are out in force on this one and say it's not safe.

I worked in the Allan Rogerstone Aluminium plant for 25 years before it was closed, demolished and then used for building new homes on.

The plant was there since the 1940’s I believe.
Over that time period there was not much attention to the environmental safeguards ( especially when I worked there 1977 - 2002).

Would I buy a house on that land - no.

There were large underground substations that were occasional flooded, the amount of oil and kerosene used on the plant was enormous.

Without comphensive testing by a third party I wouldn't

There is an industrial estate next to a well known trail centre that had public funded remediation, it essentially didn't happen as it should and the paperwork conveniently lost. White collar crime at it's best

@Denis99 - the estate I was talking about is where the old Rogerstone Power Station was.

It will be fine,all the bad stuff was dumped at Dalgety Bay 🙂

I think I’d be fine, providing all the necessary remediation work had been carried out and fully documented, any veg growing I’d probably do in grobags or planters like we do now, there’s not enough garden to really plant anything in. What would bother me would be high-voltage overhead power cables close by; I’ve had electric shocks touching my bike frame just standing underneath a set, and the buzzing would drive me nuts.

Can i ask what it is the the "no way" lot are afraid of?

(Cooper’s, next to Waitrose in Abergavenny for those that know the area)

That site is build-up with many metres of imported material above the gas-oil impacted groundwater level.

The town of Burntisland used to have an orange glow everywhere maybe from the bauxite. Great views over to Arthurs seat and the castle on a clear day. Find out if they used sulphate resistant cement in the foundations but thats maybe for old mine workings

You can detect an old iron workings with a magnet but aluminium must be smelt.

The council should have a copy of the site investigation report and details of any remediation done.
it should identify risks to human health, groundwater and surface waters and state whether remedial action is required. if there is, a remediation proposal should also be available, along with a verification/validation report.

For development it's all don'e under planning, only involving SEPA if there is ongoing pollution or at remediation phase.

I work for a remediation contractor btw.

Wwaswas
Step outside and have a think about what you have just done.

@dove1

Yes, I remember the day when they brought the cooling towers down, I was in work that day.

Large underground substations worries me, power transformers and switch gear up until the 1970's/1980's would have used PCB infused oil as an insulating medium and transformers leak.  I'll bet they weren't sitting in well maintained bunded pits so you can bet it leached into the concrete and soil.

If it was me, no way would I be buying a house there.

The village I live in used to have an aluminium smelter. It closed down about the start of the 2000s. There was a lot of decontamination work done at the time, but some land is still too contaminated for development, lots of the land is being used again but very little, if any for housing.

Yeah PCBs are not good. Non-Hodgkinsons lymphoma and potential birth defects.

Really hard for your body to excrete/metabolise them too.

The people who are saying that they wouldn't are flying in the face of evidence produced by experts, validating the work of experts and approved by experts at the council.

The only thing that would put me off buying a new build on a remediated site is the fact that it's a new build.

I probably wouldn't and certainly not without the benefit of some form of third party opinion. As others have pointed out, the Council should have had controls in place via the planning system to ensure that everything was done to ensure you wont be as risk, but in my experience plenty of site scan slip through the net.

Anyone who trusts a local council needs to have a think about it.

Near me there is a new build estate on a recent landfill site - that scares me. subsidence, who knows what pollutants and methane.

I'll be honest, I've heard far more 'horror' stories about new build housing than I have reclaimed land.

It doesn't mean the latter is not an issue but the former would be at the forefront of any concerns I had about the purchase.

The people who are saying that they wouldn’t are flying in the face of evidence produced by experts, validating the work of experts and approved by experts at the council.

People have differing levels of trust in the quality of due diligence carried out by developers, regulators and local authorities. A hard 'no' might be excessive, but I would be highly dubious without doing the kind of questioning and research the OP is doing, and not necessarily accept the word of the developer at face value.

And it only needs something unfavourable to come out in a year or two's time and suddenly the whole estate is blighted and no one can sell.

The people who are saying that they wouldn’t are flying in the face of evidence produced by experts, validating the work of experts and approved by experts at the council.

In the instance I cite the council wouldn't guarantee the remediation was done correctly not take liability for any later pollution or costs should the contamination that the experts said wouldn't be there was there.

Strangely at a later date they found the things they said weren't there when they developed it.......

What wwaswas says regarding not being able to sell and you do realise the remediation/cleanup will have been done by the lowest bidder.

The cynic in me says that the approved testing will have been at certain cleaned to standard spots with a more laissez faire attitude across the rest of the site and there is also the possibility of a nice holiday/watch/car/envelope stuffed with notes for somebody if "performance" targets are met on budget or certain reports are editted.

Oh and I love experts, after we had complained about the state of the transformers at an underground site we used to have, the state run organisation called in an expert to analyse and tell us it was safe to clear up with minimal PPE (this was back in the early 90's). The after meeting questions went like this

Expert, "yes that transformer oil is perfectly safe to clean up with rags",

My colleague "well then, you'd be happy to do it with us ?"

Expert "err that's a bit of a leading question"

I think these houses started 15 years ago so some may have been built for a while, more scary would be a landy with a big tree on the back winging it down the hill, its not far from mcmoonter territory

Been there for 7 years and none of my kids have grown extra arms or anything. Yet.

Been there for 7 years and none of my kids have grown extra arms or anything

"They've still only got the seven they were born with."

Don’t worry you’ll soon forget about it.

🤣

In the instance I cite the council wouldn’t guarantee the remediation was done correctly not take liability for any later pollution or costs should the contamination that the experts said wouldn’t be there was there.

I'm struggling with this TBH.
If the council advise that a SI is indertaken on former industrial and potentially contaminated sites, as part of planning, they are responsible for ensuring (by agreement with proposed assessment and remedial objectives) that it is done to the correct standard at that time.
What they won't commit to is ensuring that remediated land will not, through future legislative changes, become classed as contaminated if re-investigated years down the line.

Things do slip, and the council are responsible.

for example.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-27905611

To add,
I've been on numerous sites where houses have been built on still contaminated sites, like old gasworks especially.

If you have any doubts, look for evidence to mitigate that doubt, like assessment, remediation and validaion reports.

In all cases where the developer is not liable, the council have taken on the task of sorting it, as they ultimately have signed off the site for development without proper checks.

Jeremy, the contaminated land officers in Fife are some of, if not the, most diligent and thorough I've ever seen. The Scottish councils are noticeably better at this sort of thing than the English.

Building on an old landfill isn't hard, I was out on such a site today. The houses will likely have piled foundations to the base of the landfill, gas protection measures and the gardens will be built in such a way that the pollutants can't get to inhabitants.

Ming- the 90s were quite a different time. I'd say it's only really in the last 15 years that people have started taking this sort of thing seriously.

It may be safe and no future issues arise but if you’re having 2nd thoughts, think what it will be like when you come to sell. It may deter potential purchasers.

I used to work for an alloy wheel manufacturer, they just melted down mainly Aluminium & other metal ingots such as magnesium and strontium. Prior to wheels they made aero parts from aluminium. Sainsbury’s wanted to buy the site, but pulled out when the cost to make the land safe was estimated at £4m.

The factory was pulled down in the early 200s and the site is unbuilt on.

The only off putting element is that it’s based on the site of the old alcan aluminium plant which closed in 2002.

Very good

I've lived in that estate since it was built over ten years ago, I've got two kids both born here, attending the local primary school. Before we moved I checked the sepa reports for the burn, mostly as I was concerned about flooding rather than contamination as the burn used to run through a pipe to the side of the plant.

Burntisland used to be red because of the bauxite transported from the docks in lorries and if you dig deep enough down you'll still get traces of it.

The soil layers are pretty thin as the town is built on volcanic rock and the site was cleared and a thick layer of cheap clay soil dumped on top, so problems are drainage related rather than contamination.

All the remnants of toxic waste are stored up at the back road on the way to kinghorn.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/PgXyKnvoMuEmkhQV 6">Alcan Burntisland

SEPA regularly monitor it and haven't found any issues I'm aware off.