It was announced in December 2013 that the DEFRA funded Contaminated Land Capital Grants Scheme would be closed from 1 April 2014. This scheme provided Local Authorities with a means to receive government funding for contaminated land projects as defined under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 19905. This came as little surprise to Local Authorities since funding has taken a nose dive from £17.5 million in 2009/10 to just £2 million in 2013/20141. At present a small sum of £0.5 million will be available for a 3-year period until 1 April 2017 in order to meet the requirements of on-going projects and absolute emergency cases1.
The implications of the removal of DEFRA funding for Part 2A projects remain undetermined. Councils still have a statutory duty to undertake Part 2A site investigations to help make enforcement decisions, but with increasing budget pressures this is only getting harder.
So what are the options? Wakefield Council has taken the spotlight lately as they announce their £750,000 fund set aside for remediation of sites identified under Part 2A inspections3,4. Initially the Council had considered other options3, including not to undertake Part 2A inspections, to carry out inspections without a funding buffer and to seek remuneration from homeowners (classed as a Category B person) should the original polluter (Category A) be unknown or no longer exist.
GroundSure understands that the decision to incorporate a funding buffer within the Council’s existing cost recovery and hardship (CR&H) policy in order to manage financial risk4 was informed by the recent high profile Blanefield Case.
Blanefield Case Summary
Blanefield is village north of Glasgow in Stirlingshire, Scotland. In the 1960s, a small residential development was constructed on Blane Avenue, Blane Crescent and Blane Place, at the site of a historic Calico Print Works. Having identified the site as potentially contaminated land under Part 2A of the EPA 19905, Stirling Council undertook routine sampling of the residential gardens in October 2012. Elevated levels of lead and arsenic considered to present a ‘significant possibility of significant harm’5 were identified at thirteen of these properties.
The past polluter and former owner of the print works, which closed at the end of the 19th Century, could not be determined, and as such the residents of the affected properties were liable for the necessary £633,000 remediation programme, which includes excavation and removal of hazardous soils. Almost 80% of the remediation costs relate to landfill tax and VAT6.
Following two years of rigorous campaigning by residents and local MPs, including requests to the UK Government for tax exemptions associated with the clean-up, the remediation costs are now being paid for by the Scottish Government (£300,000), the UK Government (£255,000) and Stirling Council (£125,000)7.
Learning from the Blanefield example, Wakefield Council felt that the financial, reputational and legal risks associated with not having a funding reserve were too high and that the chosen option "fulfils the [Council’s Part 2A] obligations in a fair and equitable way without placing undue hardship on individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves living on [contaminated] land"3.
In terms of the amount that has been set aside, Wakefield’s Land Quality Officer has stated that "Wakefield has carried out detailed inspections of 36 high risk sites leading to 2 formal designations requiring remediation. [There are roughly] 250 high risk sites in Wakefield equating to a theoretical 12 sites awaiting remediation"3,4. Assuming this is close to the mark, the officer has stated the chosen funding should be enough in the short-term.
For Wakefield, the provision of internal funding will allow for the continuation of detailed inspection of potentially contaminated sites in the knowledge that resources for an exit strategy are available where no Category A liable person can be found. But can and will this be adopted by other Councils? We will have to wait and see…
Sources of Information:
1Lord de Mauley. Letter to all Local Authorities in England. December 2013. TS.
2http://www.mills-reeve.com/withdrawal-of-funding-for-the-contaminated-land-regime-06-16-2014/
3Contaminated Land Bulletin: Wakefield to Fund Part 2A remediation works. October/November 2014, Issue 85.
4http://www.eaonsite.com/news/contaminated-land/wakefield-to-fund-part-2a-remediation-works
5DEFRA Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance document. April 2012
6http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-24049425
7http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Up-to-300-000-to-remove-hazardous-waste-9bf.aspx
