Agenda item

Report attached.

The Cabinet considered a report of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, providing an update on the progress of the Brookside Restoration Initiative for land in Council ownership at Stanhill, Oswaldtwistle.  The report also to sought budget provision as part of a funding package for site enhancements, assessments and specialist advice.  The actions proposed would fulfil the Council’s responsibilities under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, both as a regulator and a responsible landowner.

 

Councillor Dad provided a brief introduction to the report, highlighting the support for the project, the additional investment proposed and the proposal to carry out site investigations.  The Council was taking a proactive approach to the issues identified and would commission specialist investigations.  Initial work had identified some contaminants at the site, which was consistent with the industrial heritage of the area.  The site would remain open for walkers during these works, but there would be some restrictions in place.  The Council remained committed to investigating and managing the issues identified and improving the site.  The intention was to circulate some information on this to councillors as soon as possible and to provide updates to the public via social media.

 

Councillor Khan welcomed the investment in this project and asked if additional National Lottery Heritage Fund monies might be available.  The Leader commented that the current budget proposal was for the survey only.  Anne Hourican, Senior Environmental Initiatives Officer, responded that the various capital allocations received so far were for the physical upgrades planned, such as the new entrance, etc.  Any Heritage Lottery bid would require match funding, which would need to be identified, and was not part of the current funding allocation.

 

Councillor Addison commented that the Methodist Chapel in the vicinity was now closed and that the building might be available for use in connection with the Brookside Initiative.  Ms Hourican indicated that the building had been used previously for some small community gatherings and this had been useful.  However, the chapel now had significant structural issues and the building was generally in a poor state of repair.  Any renovation of the Chapel would be a substantial additional project and would require specialist advice.

 

The Leader reported that he had asked Ms Hourican to keep him and Councillor Khan updated on developments.

 

Approval of the report was not deemed a key decision.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

Budget provision was required to support momentum of the Brookside Restoration Initiative, which was one of the Council’s most significant environmental enhancement projects.  Accessibility enhancements, including for mobility access, had been identified as the top priority in the extensive community engagement and survey activities.

 

Background

 

The site had been purchased by the Council in 2022 specifically to bring forward enhancement proposals.  This followed many years of lack of maintenance and decline in the site condition while it was in private ownership.  The Initiative was being progressed in tandem with external organisations and the local community.  It had already generated significant momentum, external funding of some £500,000 had already been secured and there would be potential for ongoing external investment to implement the Brookside Masterplan and Delivery Programme phased over 10 years.

 

Summary of initial site assessment findings

 

The industrial legacy of the site spanned at least 3 centuries, from the 1700’s industrial revolution onwards.  This was significant heritage value but it also presented some challenges which were being proactively addressed through the enhancement programme.

 

As one of the many research studies for the initiative, a specialist consultancy, RSK Environment Ltd (RSK), had been commissioned by the Council to carry out initial soil and water sampling, analysis, and preliminary risk assessments.  Regrettably, though perhaps not surprisingly given the history of the site, this had identified evidence of potential contaminants in some locations.  These were mostly located in the central and southern areas of historical industrial uses and one of the central mill lodges.  Also, there were a number of historical mining assets within the site.

 

Focused safety measures, with fencing and signage to guide public access safely through the central areas, had been implemented by the Council.  Visitors were asked to follow all on-site signage.

 

Other areas of the site would remain open for walking and informal recreation.  Preliminary investigations found no evidence of site-wide contamination, with most locations showing no visible signs or odours and vegetation limiting exposure in many areas; although it was recognised that the sampling and testing completed to date had been limited and this was to be addressed in further site assessments.

 

The pro-active enhancement programme now required further detailed assessments to better understand the extent of the contaminants, understand any implications for health and water quality, provide further guidance for public usage, and to inform the design and specification of site enhancements and any additional remediation options that might be required.

 

Proposals for the next stage of site assessments

 

Stage 1 – this comprised the following land-based assessments primarily related to potential health risks:

 

• further shallow soil sampling to delineate the magnitude and extent of contaminants;
• desk based coal mining risk assessment and Mine Remediation Authority; and
• additional assessments in the central area in response to magnetometer findings.

 

Stage 1 would also involve communications assistance for public information purposes and ongoing project management and liaison between the Council, Environment Agency and other stakeholders.

 

Stage 2 – this comprised the following water assessments primarily relating to potential controlled waters risks, together with liaison with the Environment Agency:

 

• three further rounds of water sampling; and
• drainage survey, focussing on interactions between the lodges, outfalls and brook

 

Stage 3 – this comprised the construction stage:

 

• review of detailed design proposals;
• assistance with health and safety measures for infrastructure works; and
• response and guidance on any observations encountered during construction

 

It was proposed that the Council waives its Contract Procedure Rules to appoint RSK Environment Ltd to carry out the Stage 1 assessments referred to above.  These were required urgently as the land-based assessments would provide the Council with further information about potential public health risks at the site and it was considered sensible to avoid a further, potentially lengthy procurement process given that RSK were already very familiar with the site, the Stage 1 assessments followed on from work already carried out by RSK and RSK had previously been appointed following a very thorough procurement exercise.  The assessment proposals and costs had been independently reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Health Team.  The further appointment of RSK was therefore considered by officers to provide best value to the Council.

 

Duties of the Council

 

The following advice had been received from RSK:

 

“We consider that as the landowner and with the information collected to date, the Council has a duty under Part 2A Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Contaminated Land Regulations) to assess the risks to, and protect, current site users.  Based on the findings to date, further assessment would still be necessary, regardless of future development proposals”.

 

The following advice had been received from the Council’s Environmental Health Team:

 

a)    Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended) required the Council to inspect land in its area of control from time to time for the purposes of identifying contaminated land.  In this regard, the Council was required to apply its resources to those areas most likely to be contaminated, and it should deal with the highest risk sites first.

 

b)    The Council required additional assessments in order to determine whether or not the Brookside site presented a significant risk of significant harm, or whether or not there was a significant possibility of that harm occurring to sensitive end receptors and/or to controlled waters and water environment i.e. the Council should determine whether parts of the site were or were not contaminated land for the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  

 

c)    The investigations carried out by the Council should also provide information on remediation options. 

 

Following the results of a magnetometer survey in the central area, the Environmental Health Team had also advised that the magnetometer survey might indicate the presence of buried containers, the initial soil sampling had also confirmed a visible tar-like substance in one of the sample locations in the central area of the site and that there was now enough information tosay that deterring public access was necessary in some central areas of the site. 

 

Following this advice, focussed and appropriate safety measures had been implemented on site and a risk management approach had been progressed.

 

Precautionary measures

 

Various precautionary measures had been actioned and included:

 

• enhanced hygiene measures including a dedicated hygiene station for volunteer activities;
• prioritising activities and projects into appropriate areas of the site;
• avoidance of works involving soil disturbance in some areas, pending further assessments;
• focussed access restrictions in the central area of the site accompanied by signage to guide public usage, including guidance for dog walkers;
• project management and rephasing the next proposed physical improvements to identify elements for early progress and to accommodate the timescales required for further assessments; and
• continuing to seek advice from RSK, the Environment Agency, the Council’s Environmental Health Team and other specialists.

 

Communication and stakeholder engagement

 

A communication and stakeholder engagement plan had been prepared to provide careful communication of the initial findings, explain why further investigations were being undertaken pro-actively, support understanding, and ensure that communication was proportionate, transparent and responsive to public concern.

 

Initial communications would be further informed and updated as the assessments progressed.

 

Communications channels would include site signage, Council website, FAQs information, social media, updates and briefings to a range of stakeholders.

 

The communications approach adopted industry best practice guidance.

 

The multi-agency approach included expert advice from Lancashire County Council’s Public Health Team, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) and a communications specialist working alongside RSK.

 

The Council’s communications team were also making connections with colleagues in other Councils and agencies to help with developing effective public information.

 

Site enhancement and possible remediation options

 

Design measures and remediation options would be informed by the further assessments.  The approach would generally be targeted at breaking potential exposure pathways through installation of cover materials (e.g. boardwalks or surfaced paths etc), integrating design features such as boundaries or dense planting to deter access in certain areas, ground treatments if required near mining assets, and robust risk assessment of activities.

 

The main opportunity to improve site conditions and address remediation measures was by integrating these measures into site enhancements.  Any need to remove materials from the site and/or for physical remediation was not known at this stage and would be informed by the further assessments.

 

Other requests for external financial support towards assessments

 

DEFRA – Land Remediation Pathfunder Scheme (LRPS) – EoI submitted

 

A new Land Remediation Pathfinder Scheme (LRPS) had been launched on 8^th April and an expression of interest had been submitted by the Council on 7^th May 2026.  Clearly this would be highly competitive, but if selected, it might assist with further specialist inputs and later remediation options if required.

 

Environment Agency (EA)

 

Formal consultation with the Environment Agency (EA) had been submitted in relation to their regulatory responsibilities for controlled waters.  In addition, several requests had been made for EA financial support to assist with the ongoing assessments.

 

For information, there might be potential for EA funding to assist with later delivery of stream restoration and wetland proposals which were part of the overall masterplan.  EA colleagues had put forward a proposal which might enable funding in 2027/28 onwards.  At that stage, the costs of related assessment works could be integrated into the delivery budget and project management arrangements.

 

External investments in site enhancements and proposed community activities

 

Three external capital grants had already been secured for access enhancements and a range of improvements in 2026/27:

 

• Pride in Place                                     £200,000
• FCC Communities Foundation           £100,000
• Lancashire Environmental Fund           £30,000

 

A bid to the National Lottery Heritage Fund was intended to be prepared by the Prospects Foundation in respect of the next stage of the initiative.  This would bid for some £250,000 over 2 or 3 years, to support heritage related actions, community activities and engagement and the related staff capacity.  It was likely that additional match funding in the region of £50,000 would be required from the Council or other sources to support this bid.

 

A Countryside Stewardship pre-application had been submitted by the Council’s Planning Team in respect of the site.  This was normally now a closed funding stream, but the Council’s entry had been invited as the authority had an approved Woodland Management Plan.

 

Alternative Options considered and Reasons for Rejection

 

Option 1 - would be to do nothing.  This was not recommended as it would halt progress with the Brookside initiative, fail to use £330,000 of capital funding currently secured, miss out on other opportunities for external investment and fail to fulfil the statutory duties of the Council both as regulator and as a responsible landowner.  It would also fail to be pro-active in improving site conditions through positive design measures.

 

Option 2 - would be to delay assessments and site enhancements.  This option was not recommended for the same reasons as above.

 

Resolved                                    -    That Cabinet approves the following:

 

(1)   Budget provision of £150,000 to add to external capital grants already secured for a package of site enhancements accompanied by specialist assessments that are required to understand the implications of industrial legacy at the Brookside site.

 

(2)   The waiving of the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules in respect of the appointment of RSK Environment Ltd, to carry out further specialist assessments at the Brookside site for the reasons given in Paragraph 3.11 of the report.