Memorandum submitted by Stuart Drummond,
Mayor of Hartlepool
Thank you for your invitation to provide information
to your meeting on 19 November 2003 which will consider the so-called
US "Ghost Ships". Despite the very short notice (I was
only made aware of this request, and indeed that your committee
is meeting, last Friday, 14 November), I am extremely pleased
to be asked to contribute to your debate as this is what local
people have been requesting—a public inquiry into the circumstances
surrounding this ship dismantling project.
I should say first of all that Hartlepool Borough
Council's only direct involvement in this project is through its
role as Local Planning Authority (LPA). You will be aware that
in this role the LPA is required to consider all planning applications
put before it, on their own merits and only taking material considerations
into account.
However, the Council also has a responsibility
to act as the voice for local people, and they have two main concerns
which we have attempted to articulate:
— the importation of toxic waste from
the United States of America and its disposal within Hartlepool;
and
— the lack of transparency within the
process.
So far as our role as the LPA is concerned,
we have had no formal decisions to make on this matter until very
recently (see below). The Council has not yet been required to
determine any planning application by Able UK Ltd. related to
this project. Nor has it received any application for a Certificate
of Lawfulness of proposed Use or Development under section 192
of the Town and Country Planning Act, despite council officers
having suggested to Able UK on several occasions that that would
be an appropriate route to clarify the planning position in a
formal way.
(A planning application for a cofferdam was
submitted by Able UK on 20 August but was withdrawn on 17 September,
prior to determination. In addition, an application for the installation
of metal sheering facilities was submitted by European Metal Recycling
Limited on 4 August; this application is still being processed
prior to submission to the Council's Planning Committee for determination.)
The Council has, however, had considerable consultations
with Able UK on an informal basis, in seeking to clarify the scope
and validity of past planning permissions, related to the current
project proposals.
The relevant past permissions can be summarised
as follows:
(a) TDC/96/091 granted by the Teesside Development
Corporation in October 1997, related to a range of uses of the
site, including the dismantling/refurbishment of redundant marine
structures and equipment, and various operational developments.
NB Teesside Development Corporation no longer
exists. Its planning responsibilities, so far as they relate to
the Borough of Hartlepool, have reverted back to this Council.
(b) H/FUL/0375/02 granted by the Council
in August 2002, related to the continuation of the use of the
site originally permitted by the aforementioned TDC/96/091.
(c) TDC/95/010 also granted by the Teesside
Development Corporation in October 1997, related to the restoration
of dock gates and construction and removal of a rock-filled bund
(dam).
The first informal approach to the Council was
via a confidential telephone query of officers in March, seeking
confirmation that existing planning permissions allowed for the
dismantling of ships at the Graythorp (Hartlepool) site. Based
on an initial examination of the planning history, officers informally
verbally indicated their understanding that the ships could be
dismantled within the terms of existing permissions.
The first details of the proposed project did
not emerge, however, until a meeting on 1 July of the standing
advisory group, TEAG, which comprises Able UK and a number of
regulatory agencies and local environmental interest groups, with
the objective of seeking to minimise any detrimental effects on
the environment from operators at the Graythorp site.
Ongoing informal discussions since then between
Able UK and the Council have sought to clarify two related planning
issues of considerable complexity:
(a) Whether there is an extant planning permission
to allow for the dismantling of ships.
(b) Whether there is an extant permission
to allow for the construction of a bund/dam and dock gates(s)
so as to create a dry dock.
It is Able UK's responsibility to establish
the validity of past planning permissions, by reference to such
factors as the discharge of planning conditions and a lawful start
on development.
Consideration of these matters by council officers
has involved detailed examination of past records from Able UK,
the Teesside Development Corporation and the Borough Council and
the taking of impartial legal advice from Counsel on these records
and legal opinion submitted by Able UK. This has necessitated
substantial commitment of staff resources since July, in seeking
to clarify these matters and in seeking to liaise with the other
regulatory bodies involved in the wider project.
In relation to item (a) above, Council officers
have advised Able UK that based on the information available,
it is the Council's view that the company has permission for the
dismantling and refurbishment of ships; this was considered to
be covered by the H/FUL/0375/02 permission for the continued use
of the site, as originally granted under TDC/096/091. This view
is subject to Judicial Review proceedings scheduled for 15-16
December.
In relation to item (b) above, the Council's
position to date, based upon the information available and Counsel's
advice, is that we do not accept that there is an extant permission
upon which the company can rely. The company has accordingly been
invited to submit a new planning application for their proposals
to construct a dam and dock gates. Able UK however continues to
contend that it can rely on past permissions and seeks to submit
further evidence with a view to establishing that position. Officers
continue to consult with Able in this respect and to take legal
advice on these matters.
In parallel with consideration of the planning
position, officers also responded to consultation from the Environment
Agency on proposed modifications of the Waste Management Licence
for the Graythorp site, relating to the dismantling of ships and
the tonnage of waste which could be dealt with at the site. Utilising
delegated powers, officers indicated on 22 September that given
that the planning permissions previously granted did not impose
any restrictions on maximum tonnages and that the Council was
of the belief that ships could be dismantled under the terms of
previous permissions, the Council did not wish to object to the
proposed licence modification.
The Council at its meeting on 23 October indicated
that it wished all substantive planning views and decisions on
this project to be considered and agreed by the Planning Committee,
rather than rely on the normal officer delegations.
The first formal consideration of this project
by the Planning Committee was on 3 November, when the Committee
were advised of the Judicial Review proceedings. Subsequently,
on 12 November, the Committee met to respond to the Environment
Agency's emergency consultation on proposed modifications to the
Waste Management Licence, to cater for the storage of ships at
Graythorp site. The Committee requested that certain proposed
conditions were amended, reflecting its concern that transparent
and robust inspection and monitoring arrangements are put in place.
These matters represent the total involvement to date of the Planning
Committee in this project.
Turning now to the Council's responsibility
to act as the voice for local people, and your specific question
to inform you when I first became aware of this project, I can
say that I personally became aware of this through the press on
my return from holiday during the first week of August. I understand
that the first formal indication of this project to the Council
occurred during July 2003.
As set out above, there was some informal contact
with officers before July but I should emphasise that officers
regularly receive commercially confidential requests for informal
advice and/or information, so contact of this nature in respect
to this ship dismantling contract was nothing out of the ordinary.
The first official involvement of the Council
was on 18 July when the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) asked
for views on their providing an exemption certificate under the
Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations. It should be noted that this
consultation was at the behest of the Minister for Works and Pensions
rather than as part of a prescribed formal consultation process.
In order to explain the basis for council officers" response
to this request, I need to summarise this, and all other councils"
decision-making processes.
Each year the Council is required to agree a
budget and a "policy framework". Implementation of the
budget and policies is delegated to myself as Elected Mayor. I
in turn formally delegate responsibility to members of my Cabinet,
and to officers of the Council. Under this scheme of delegation,
chief officers have the authority to respond to Government consultations
after consulting the relevant member of the Cabinet.
On receipt of the HSE request on 18 July, to
which they required a response by 25 July, rather than just consulting
the relevant Cabinet member as required by the scheme of delegation,
the then acting Director of Regeneration and Planning considered
it appropriate to consult with as many Cabinet members as possible
in the limited time available. This sounding of members"
views took place at an informal meeting of Cabinet on 23 July.
The appropriate response (the basis for which, and its content,
is summarised below) was e-mailed to the HSE on 25 July.
Hartlepool Council works to a number of corporate
objectives arising from its adoption of Hartlepool Partnership's
Community Strategy. The two objectives relevant to the ships dismantling
project are:
"Develop a more enterprising,
vigorous and diverse local economy that will attract investment,
be globally competitive and create more employment opportunities
for local people."
"Secure a more attractive and
sustainable environment that is safe, clean and tidy. . ."
Able UK has attracted inward investment following
a competitive tender, which I believe involved other companies
worldwide, and has the potential to create employment opportunities.
Thus the proposal is in alignment with the Council's objective
on Jobs and the Economy.
The response to the HSE also indicated that
reasonable efforts need to be made to ensure that the jobs created
are offered to local people, recruited locally and appropriately
trained, equipped and supervised.
So far as questions relating to our Environmental
objective are concerned, I believe the caveats set out within
the e-mail addressed those concerns. Support on economic regeneration
grounds was given without prejudice to any further consents or
permissions that may be required, and subject to the following:
— "The imposition of strict conditions
concerning the health and safety regime employed to ensue the
safe removal and disposal of the asbestos and other materials,
the adherence of the strictly controlled conditions to which you
refer and the strict monitoring and control of the licensee's
performance through the HSE and the Environmental Agency."
— "The proper security and operation
of the sites involved, to safeguard the health and safety of the
community and the workforce, and to protect the environment."
— "The necessary safeguards to
ensue that the proposal does not adversely affect the integrity
of the SPAs, RAMSAR sites and SSSIs."
Officers, on the Council's behalf, thus gave
heavily qualified approval to the HSE issuing the exemption certificate.
The local employment element of this project
was considered by the Council's Portfolio Holder for Regeneration
and the Economy on 14 August. His decision was to welcome the
significant job creation associated with this project and to endorse
the proposed local recruitment service to be developed with Able
UK and relevant partner agencies.
Questions were raised about this project during
the public participation section of our Council meeting on 11
September. The following motion was debated and agreed:
"That the Council ask the Scrutiny Co-ordinating
Committee to examine the issues in totality with regard to processes
and projects undertaken on the site, taking into consideration
the SSSI sites in the area which had been designated since the
planning application approved by the Teesside Development Company
in 1996, and that the inquiry be held as soon as possible."
The Chief Solicitor reminded the Council that
the Scrutiny Committee would not be able to direct the Planning
Committee as to the determination of any relevant planning application,
and this was recorded in the Minutes of the meeting. It was also
noted that the planning process would have to proceed according
to the planning timetable.
The Council then debated and agreed to a further
motion that this issue be referred to the Council's Neighbourhood
Consultative Forums for consideration.
The Council has three Neighbourhood Forums it
uses to consult with local people. A joint meeting of these Forums
took place on 3 October, during which considerable opposition
to the proposals was expressed.
Questions by elected members were next debated
by Council at its meeting on 23 October, and it resolved as follows:
"We request the Chairman call an Extraordinary
meeting of the Council to discuss the admission by the Secretary
of State at the Ministry of Transport that he has the power to
reroute the Ghost Ships and turn them back and propose the following
motion that the Council immediately contact the Secretary of State
and ask that he use these powers and turn back the ships."
This meeting took place on 4 November and those
members present unanimously agreed the motion. In between these
dates, on 31 October, Scrutiny Committee held a meeting to take
evidence from those involved in the processes surrounding this
project. It lasted for the full day with presentations being given
by Able UK and all agencies involved, including the Council. Questions
were asked of those presenting by elected members and members
of the public. The Scrutiny Co-ordinating Committee will meet
again tomorrow (18 November) to discuss the next stage in the
scrutiny process.
Following the Council resolution of 4 November
the Chief Executive, on behalf of the Council, has written to
the Ministers for Transport and the Environment asking that the
ships be returned to the USA. I have written to the Prime Minister
suggesting that the ships which have crossed the Atlantic be held
in a Naval dock yard during the Winter months, pending their return
to the USA as required by international law, and that a Public
Inquiry be held to examine this issue.
I believe that I have accurately summarised
the Council's position to date, but as you have also specifically
requested that I set out exactly what toxic materials I believe
are on board the ships, I'll now do so.
My understanding is that approximately 98% of
the ship will be reused or recycled, as this is merely scrap metal.
Most of the hazardous materials on board the ships are contained
in their structure, as they were part of their construction. They
consist of white asbestos which form part of the bulkheads, and
PCBs contained in wiring, gaskets, seals, and the like. I believe
that any liquid PCBs which may have been present were removed
before the ships set sail. The residual oils on board the ships
will be very small in quantity.
Whilst the quantities of these toxins may be
small, I believe the principle enshrined in international law,
that the producing country deals with its own waste, is paramount.
In conclusion I would like to submit four recommendations
for the Committee's consideration:
1. If in the event that the necessary permissions
are obtained to allow the current contract to proceed, the toxic
waste extracted from these ships be returned to the United States
of America.
2. For future contracts of this nature,
there be a contractual requirement that as much of the hazardous
substances as possible be removed in the country of origin, with
the balance being returned to the country of origin following
dismantling.
3. The processes for agreeing to the importation
of hazardous substances into the UK be made more publicly transparent,
with at least the "recipient" local authority being
formally consulted.
4. One Government Department/Agency to act
as "lead agency" to be responsible for co-ordination
of all agencies involved and the consultation process.Thank you
once again for providing the Council with the opportunity to give
evidence to your committee. I hope I have been able to cover everything
you require in the time available.
17 November 2003
| 
