Probe de­lay

De­mo­li­tion starts at Burn­hill cen­tre

Rutherglen Reformer - - Front Page - Edel Ke­nealy

An in­ves­ti­ga­tion into whether chromium is present on the site of the for­mer Burn­hill Sports Cen­tre will not be com­pleted in the im­me­di­ate fu­ture.

The coun­cil said in­ves­ti­ga­tions would not be com­pleted un­til a use for the site had been iden­ti­fied.

An in­ves­ti­ga­tion into whether or not chromium is present on the site of the for­mer Burn­hill Sports Cen­tre will not be com­pleted in the im­me­di­ate fu­ture.

South La­nark­shire Coun­cil said this week that the costly in­ves­ti­ga­tions would not be com­pleted un­til a per­ma­nent use for the site had been iden­ti­fied.

The lo­cal author­ity spoke about the po­ten­tial pres­ence of the harm­ful chem­i­cal as the de­mo­li­tion of the sports cen­tre en­ters its fi­nal week.

Chromium VI is largely sus­pected to be present on the site be­cause of its prox­im­ity to where the old Whites Chem­i­cal Fac­tory was po­si­tioned.

Of­ten used as a cat­a­lyst in the chem­i­cal man­u­fac­tur­ing in­dus­try, Chromium VI is ex­tremely harm­ful to hu­mans and can cause ill­nesses such as lung cancer to peo­ple who are re­peat­edly ex­posed to it.

Daniel Lowe, ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of hous­ing and tech­ni­cal re­sources at the coun­cil, said: “We can con­firm that the de­mo­li­tion of Burn­hill Sports Cen­tre be­gan on July 24 and is ex­pected to be com­pleted by the week com­menc­ing Au­gust 21. The de­mo­li­tion will not in­clude the dis­place­ment of foun­da­tions which will re­main in place.

“There are cur­rently no pro­pos­als for the fu­ture use of this site and we are not ac­tively mar­ket­ing it.

“We would not ini­ti­ate any de­tailed in­ves­ti­ga­tion of the site un­til we have a clearer in­di­ca­tion about its pre­ferred use.”

Kim Jack­son is a mem­ber of Burn­hill Ac­tion Group which fought to save the sports cen­tre as a com­mu­nity fa­cil­ity.

She said the group re­mained com­mit­ted to cre­at­ing a hub for Burn­hill should that re­main the wish of the lo­cal peo­ple.

She said: “We worked up a fund­ing ap­pli­ca­tion that came in at about £1.2mil­lion to knock it down and put some­thing in its place. But we couldn’t get all our ducks in a row in time and we took a step back.

“We would need to do an op­tions sur­vey and that would be one of the op­tions, but there is no point in us do­ing that if it’s not some­thing that they would sup­port. We would ask peo­ple to come to our AGM and let us know their views. The ac­tion group are will­ing to go for­ward with an ap­pli­ca­tion but we need the peo­ple of Burn­hill on our side to do that.”

A South La­nark­shire Coun­cil re­port pub­lished last year re­vealed it would cost £24 mil­lion to rid Shaw­field of chromium VI.

New data re­vealed the harm­ful chem­i­cal is five times greater in the area west of Glas­gow Road, which housed the chem­i­cal fac­tory, than the old in­dus­trial land to the east.

While a por­tion of the site - the new Shaw­field In­dus­trial Es­tate was re­lieved of chromium VI in 2014, the South Croft Road area is set to be re­lieved of the chem­i­cal in the next two to three years in a pro­gramme of works led by Clyde Gate­way Ur­ban Re­gen­er­a­tion Com­pany. The Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment pro­vided £936,000 through the 2016 Va­cant and Derelict Land Fund to kick-start the work.

Keep out The mes­sage is clear be­cause the ma­te­rial is highly toxic

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.