A CAERPHILLY Council committee has dismissed a call to back ‘Zane’s Law’, a campaign aimed at tightening rules around contaminated land.
Plaid Cymru councillor Steve Skivens said he hoped to see a change in laws he alleged had been “watered down”.
“The area we live in has a legacy of our industrial past”, he told colleagues at an environment committee meeting on Tuesday March 25.
The Zane’s Law campaign was set up following the death of seven-year-old Zane Gbangbola, in Surrey, in 2014.
His family claims Zane’s death was caused by gas released from a former landfill site during a flood – although a coroner concluded he was killed by carbon monoxide from a pump used to remove floodwater from his home.
Zane’s Law seeks more transparency over land where contamination has been suspected or confirmed, and would compel local authorities to keep public records of those sites.
The campaign also calls on councils to remediate closed landfill sites, and the government to provide funds for any works.
Cllr Skivens referenced “problem sites” in the county borough, adding: “I hope none of us would want any harm to come to humans or natural habitats.”
His notice of motion was supported by Plaid councillors Alan Angel, Charlotte Bishop, Greg Ead, Teresa Parry, John Roberts, John Taylor and Lindsay Whittle; independent councillors Nigel Dix, Kevin Etheridge, Andrew Farina-Childs, Jan Jones, Bob Owen and Janine Reed; and Labour councillor Elizabeth Davies.
In a report, council officers said new measures “would require significant investment”, and also noted the local authority had secured Welsh Government funding through existing legislation to “investigate and address several sites” where remediation may be required.
At the environment committee meeting, Cllr Adrian Hussey said the proposed measures, if implemented, could “put a financial burden on local authorities”.
He said national government should “foot the bill” for any works that may be needed.
But fellow committee member Cllr Charlotte Bishop said the council has “a duty of care” to residents and the environment.
Committee members went on to vote 9-6 against the proposed motion, with one abstention.
