Even the rudimentary land remediation strategy that was approved for the Glebelands Development has still not been fully implemented, leaving the associated conservation areas vulnerable to levels of risk that have not been quantified.

For this reason, the building work carried out is not authorised by the planning consent, as the work carried out does not comply with planned arrangements as set out in the planning permission. As of December 2010, there is no agreed time limit within which the remediation strategy must be completed.

Concerns remain about the contamination pathway that exists between the landfill material and ‘Lotery’s Reen’ that crosses the contaminated development site, and which empties into the River Usk. In particular, Section 7.2 of the Remediation Strategy approved in January 2006 states:
"As outlined below, the remediation strategy assumes that the reen is to be redirected through a fully concrete-lined channel. It is the lining of this channel that is important as the concrete effectively severs any contaminant pathway between contamination in the made ground and the controlled waters within the reen."
Importantly, the paragraph continues:
"Should the development plans change such that the reen is not lined, the remediation strategy, and the risk assessment upon which it is based, will require adjustment in accordance with the scheme changes."

The importance of lining Lotery’s Reen is further emphasised through other references to the reen within the Remediation Strategy, as per the following extracts:
Remediation Strategy, Section 5.3: ‘Environment Agency Wales’
Extract:
"Under the current development proposals, the proposed works for the reen remain the same as before, in that it is to be located within a concrete lined channel. If this situation changes, the risk assessment will require re-visiting."

Remediation Strategy, Section 6.2.2: ‘Controlled waters’
Extract:
"The reen was not considered as a receptor for the purposes of this assessment, as the development plans include the complete culverting of the reen structure, so severing any potential pathways between it and any contamination that may be present on site."

Remediation Strategy, Section 6.3.1: ‘October 2004 investigation: Rationale and methodology’
Extract:
"Previous work suggested that the PCB contamination was restricted to the southern portion of the Northern area, immediately to the north of the reen. Previous work also suggested that the PCB contamination was associated with the buried drums, a number of which were identified as part of the October 2003 investigation. The October 2004 investigation was therefore designed to further target these drums and associated soils. It is considered prudent to emphasise that these drums are no longer in tact, being in a corroded and fragmented form."

Remediation Strategy, Section 6.3.2: ‘Site zoning and data sub-sets’
Extract:
"In both the October 2003 and the supplementary October 2004 investigations, the drums [of PCB] were only found in the southern portion of the Northern area, i.e. under the former all weather clay sports pitch adjacent to the reen. They were also concentrated within the eastern part of this area."

Remediation Strategy, Section 6.3.4: ‘‘Human health tier 1 and 2 – PCBs and Dutch SRCs for soils’
Extract:
"It must be noted that the reen is to be culverted as part of the proposed development. The River Usk has therefore been used as the key receptor."
Remediation Strategy, Section 6.3.10: ‘Controlled waters – groundwater’
Extract:
"As described for soils in Section 6.3.8 above, a QRA was undertaken in October 2003 for the whole site. This assessed the risk to the River Usk for contamination on site in both the soil and groundwater. The reen was not assessed, as it was considered severed from any pathway by the proposed concrete lining."

Remediation Strategy, Section 7.1: ‘Objectives’
Extract:
"There are two key issues that form the objective of the remediation on the site, and they are:
• Protection of human health through the removal or severance of any significant pollutant linkage between identified contamination on the site and any future site users.
• Protection of controlled waters through the removal or severance of any potential pollutant linkage between identified PCB contamination on the site and the River Usk."

The extracts above are important because, when development plans did change significantly in 2008 – and despite all these references to the importance lining Lotery’s Reen – Newport council still permitted the school development to proceed:
- without lining Lotery’s Reen;
- without requiring an updated risk assessment;
- without requiring an updated Remediation Strategy; and,
- without ensuring that a new planning application was raised to properly consider the changes being made to the original planned arrangements.

This is why the following clause in Section 7.2 of the Remediation Strategy is so important:
"Should the development plans change such that the reen is not lined, the remediation strategy, and the risk assessment upon which it is based, will require adjustment in accordance with the scheme changes."

When development plans did change such that the reen was not lined: neither the remediation strategy, nor the risk assessment upon which it was based, were adjusted in accordance with the changes to the scheme. Material changes had been made to the substance of the original planning permission to significantly alter the development’s character. Those who should have been consulted on the changed development were deprived of the opportunity of such consultation.