Polkemmet golf course under construction on the site of an old steel works in Scotland


was laid over old mine workings and later suffered several instances of subsidence.


“It all forms part of the risk assessment of a site,” Rob stresses. “You have to adopt a highly objective viewpoint. Depending on the findings from the laboratory tests, we may advise the client not to proceed with the project because we believe the costs of decontaminating the site may make the project uneconomical.”


Legislation governing contaminated land, how to deal with it and how to safeguard those working with it, started to bite as the new millennium dawned. Projects proceeding since then have been subject to a whole host of regulatory constraints, limiting the risk of any ‘backlash’ from potentially hazardous sites once they have been redeveloped. Most recently, in 2007, the


Construction, Design and Management (CDM) Regulations 2007 came into force, putting the onus of responsibility on the client to provide sufficient resources to ensure contractors are not put at risk in any way when on site - by excavating unstable or contaminated land, for example. “The client has to appoint a CDM co-


ordinator, an engineering consultant for example, early on in any project, requiring 500 man-hours or more to complete,” Rob explains. Polluted land was an issue few had considered worth worrying about in the UK, being more at home in post-Soviet nations with the issues of nuclear contamination. Yet, Britain has a substantial and, potentially worrying, legacy of chemical contaminants, especially those found in soil. Sometimes, the contaminants may


104


be present, often resulting from human, industrial and domestic pollution. Mostly, the level of contaminants is sufficiently low to pose no risk. Sometimes, the risks to human health or the environment can be significant. It is when such risks exist that land is considered to be ‘contaminated’. Contaminated land legislation, which formed part of Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, was first introduced in 1995, coming into force five years later in 2000. The primary aim of Part 2A was to


provide a means of finding and dealing with England’s substantial legacy of land contamination, and the risks that it can pose to people’s health and the environment. As a result, local authorities and any private firm developing on land are required to identify any contaminated land and ensure that its associated risks are properly dealt with.


The Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has introduced a wide range of policies to tackle land contamination, which fall into two broad areas. First, measures to find and deal with existing contaminated land and second, those to prevent more contaminated land being created. In dealing with existing contaminated land, there are two main types of site to be addressed. First, those where a ‘voluntary’ solution is appropriate. Often, land is remediated and being redeveloped, or landowners want to increase the utility and


value of their land. Second, sites where a voluntary solution is unlikely.


Such cases would include contaminated sites developed without being cleaned up, sites where remediation would be too expensive, and those where the polluter and/or the current owner is unwilling to deal with the problem voluntarily.


It is on these types of sites


where contaminated land legislation comes into force, and where DEFRA is keen to make the biggest headway and, ultimately, has the biggest interest. Some sites, such as playing fields, may pose a significant threat to sports enthusiasts, while those managing them may be unaware of the risks, because action to build them may have already gone ahead before legislation came into force.


Who does what? There are six main players


from government departments, agencies and local authorities who oversee and deliver policy on contaminated land. Local authorities are the principal


regulators, identifying potentially contaminated land within their boundaries and being responsible for deciding whether land it is ‘contaminated’ as defined within the law. DEFRA oversees


contaminated


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140