By then it was one of the largest steelmaking operations in Western Europe, covering 680 acres (280 ha), with four blast furnaces, two coke oven complexes and associated facilities.

[8] The evidence presented included reports detailing the higher rate of birth defects, and alleging that exposure to the toxic waste was the likely cause of the children's deformities.

They also presented a report written by Roger Braithwaite, an environmental expert instructed by the families, which concluded that the negligent handling of the waste by Corby Borough Council demonstrated "naivety, arrogance, ignorance, incompetence and a possible serious conflict of interest... At this early stage it would seem to me that these... badly polluted lands have never been effectively or comprehensively assessed, properly permitted, regulated, monitored or adequate records maintained...

"[8] After reviewing the evidence presented by all parties to the case, an order approved by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, set out the terms of the litigation in relation to the council's management and execution of the "land reclamation contracts" between 1985 and 1999 and any duty they had to the families, and permission was given for the parents to pursue the claim against Corby Borough Council as a class action involving children born between 1985 and 1999.

[8] The case to be heard at the High Court in 2009 represented 18 young people who alleged that toxic waste dumped by Corby Borough Council between 1984 and 1999 was the cause of their deformities.

[9] When the case reached the High Court on 16 February 2009, involving 18 families and the culmination of a ten-year legal process, evidence was put forward describing how, between 1985 and 1997, there existed a possibility that expectant mothers could have been affected by toxic waste which could either have travelled by air as a consequence of dust, or could have been ingested after landing on vegetables or other items.

[7] David Wilby, QC, leading counsel for the claimants, stated in court that one expert, in trying to convey the appearance of the minute particles hanging over the town at that time, had described it as an "atmospheric soup of toxic materials".

[citation needed] The presence and locations of the toxic waste was known before work began, having been stored in purpose-built "pits" around the site by British Steel, "in a form which was of no danger to anyone unless they fell in.

But the effect of the works undertaken was to remove the majority of these materials and move them a long distance to other areas of Corby, and this involved vast numbers of vehicle movements.

That negligence and, as from April 1, 1992, breach of statutory duty on the part of CBC permitted and led to the extensive dispersal of contaminated mud and dust over public areas of Corby and into and over private homes, with the result that the contaminants could realistically have caused the types of birth defects of which complaint has been made by the claimants (save in limited respects)... Corby Borough Council is liable in public nuisance, negligence and breach of statutory duty, obviously subject to it being established in later proceedings by individual claimants that their particular conditions were actually caused by the defaults identified in this judgment.

"[14] The two youngest claimants, nine-year-old India Harrison and ten-year-old Ashleigh Jane Custance, were unable at that time to proceed with their cases, however, because of the ruling that there were no breaches of duty after August 1997.

The families' lawyer, Des Collins, said: "Prior to the trial, the council maintained that a thorough investigation had led it to the conclusion that there was no link between the reclamation work and the children's birth defects.

For both local authorities and developers alike this is a significant concern because the standard of care has been drawn very highly, and could cause a rethink of the way that reclamation is carried out in the UK even though the facts of the case are historic.

Unusually, the authority decided that openness and public opinion were required at the extraordinary full council sitting after which councillors will vote on whether to appeal or instead pay the compensation to 16 children who were born with birth defects.

[21] At the meeting the council voted to appeal against the ruling[22] but said that they would follow a "twin track" approach, preferring to attend independent mediation sessions to come to an out-of-court settlement with the families.

[23] The chief executive gave a statement that if a causal link between the toxins and the limb deformities was ever proven he would "offer an unreserved apology", however he believed "that the judgement is unsound and will be found wanting on appeal.

[25] Chris Mallender said: "The council recognises that it made mistakes in its clean-up of the former British Steel site years ago and extends its deepest sympathy to the children and their families.

Although I accept that money cannot properly compensate these young people for their disabilities and for all that they have suffered to date and their problems in the future, the council sincerely hopes that this apology coupled with today's agreement will mean that they can now put their legal battle behind them and proceed with their lives with a greater degree of financial certainty.

In essence, the message remains the same - proper risk assessment is key and must include identifying the appropriate people to do the job and not cutting corners, which, as has been proved for Corby Borough Council, is likely to be false economy.