Gravesham Borough Council’s leader has asked the Secretary of State whether evidence about lead contamination was properly challenged before the Northfleet Harbourside scheme was refused, after the UK Health Security Agency said it had no significant concerns about the health of people living near Britannia Refined Metals’ works.

Correction — 20 October 2026: An earlier version of this article, published on 19 October, presented the UK Health Security Agency’s finding as not clearing the way for new homes. Gravesham Borough Council’s statement makes the opposite point: its leader says the finding raises questions about the refusal of the Northfleet Harbourside scheme and about the evidence given by Britannia Refined Metals. The earlier version also described the UK Health Security Agency as a Gravesham health body, attributed statements to Britannia Refined Metals and gave figures for the scheme that we could not source. The article has been rewritten from the council’s statement. The error is recorded on our Corrections page.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has told Gravesham Borough Council that, based on the information provided, it has “no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of the existing local population from emissions of lead in relation to the BRM installation, based on its current operations”.

The council published the finding on Monday 19 October 2026 in a statement from its leader, Councillor John Burden. BRM is Britannia Refined Metals, which operates a lead works on the riverside at Northfleet.

Why the council asked

The Secretary of State refused planning permission for the Northfleet Harbourside scheme, which proposed up to 3,500 homes on land around Ebbsfleet United’s ground, after a public inquiry. As Kent Local News reported on 31 July, the decision cited the loss of Robins Wharf, a working aggregate wharf on the Thames, together with contamination, public health and job losses.

Cllr Burden said the council was “as concerned as local residents over the references to levels of contamination on site from the operations of Britannia Refined Metals”. Since the decision, he said, the council has been working with UKHSA “to understand the levels of emissions from the site and what, if any, risk they pose to local residents, businesses and visitors to the area”.

‘It does raise further questions’

Cllr Burden said he hoped the finding “sets minds at rest for the many who were alarmed by the Secretary of State’s report”, but added: “it does raise further questions.”

He asked: “Has Britannia Refined Metals’ operation at the site ever given rise to higher than acceptable emissions in the local area, and why does BRM’s own evidence raise this as a potentially serious issue now when the evidence suggests otherwise? Is this something to be concerned about going forward?”

He said that raising contamination as a reason for refusal “has effectively rendered one of the borough’s largest brownfield sites as undeliverable for any potential developer”.

Cllr Burden has written to the Secretary of State asking whether the evidence of BRM’s expert witness at the inquiry “was sufficiently challenged”, and about the weight it was given in the decision to refuse the application.

What the finding covers

The conclusion quoted by the council concerns the existing local population and BRM’s current operations. The council’s statement quotes UKHSA’s conclusion but does not include the assessment itself. The refusal also rested on the loss of Robins Wharf, which the UKHSA finding does not concern.

Key information

  • UKHSA: “no significant concerns” about the health of the existing local population from lead emissions from BRM’s current operations, based on the information provided.
  • Gravesham’s leader has asked the Secretary of State whether BRM’s expert evidence at the inquiry was sufficiently challenged.
  • No reply from the Secretary of State has been published.

Source: Gravesham Borough Council, Harbourside contamination statement, 19 October 2026.