A MULTI-national company could destroy an important area of Dartford Fresh Marshes by building 42,500 square metres of office space on it.

The marsh is one of the last remaining unprotected wetlands in England and is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest because of its rich flora and fauna and rare water vole population. Under the original planning application in 1997, which was never finalised, GlaxoSmithKline would have had to return the 22 hectare site to its original condition, as a fresh water marsh, once it ceased using the site.

But Dartford Borough Council has decided the company will no longer have to spend millions of pounds removing the offices from the marshland if the planning application is finalised and it does build there. There is expected to be a decision on planning permission within the next six months.

Kent Wild Life Trust spokesman Andrew Craven said: "It's the usual thing. The economy against the environment. Glaxo being such a big player in employing people, environmental concerns are outweighed.

"This change in policy shows where GlaxoSmithKline's interests lie. It is a very important area it is planning to destroy. Nothing it does can compensate for this.

"But we hope it does not try to renege on other commitments and continues to enhance the remaining portion of the fresh water marshes. That means long term management commitment."

A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline said: "Returning the marshland to its former habitat is no longer required under present legislation.

"We have no plans to develop the site now. The planning permission we are seeking is for the future to provide the potential for expansion should we need it.

"We are involved in managing the marshland and supporting the environmental projects which are taking place. There are no plans for the status of the marshland to change."

A Dartford Borough Council environmental officer said: "The proposal for reinstatement was made before Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came into force, which sets out the regime for dealing with contamination. It is now clear that, while the liability is based on the 'polluter pays' principle, this does not extend to removing buildings."

November 20, 2001 14:36