A Stakeholder’s Perspective on Contaminated Land Management - Dealing with Contaminated Sites: From Theory Towards Practical Application - page 1069

The UK was an early adopter of the “suitable for use” philosophy for site reuse,
avoiding the multi-functionality approach. Industrial site remediation in the UK is
decentralised and strongly development led. This moves remediation costs away
from the public purse and into the development feasibility calculations. Hence, these
legacy costs are factored into current land values. The government recently adopted
a National Brownfield Strategy to deal with dereliction and accelerate renewal. It
also has a target of building 60% of all new homes on “previously developed land”
(a term commonly but not necessarily accurately used synonymously with the term
“Brownfield”) that has long been exceeded.
While not all Brownfield sites are contaminated, or even industrial, a substantial
proportion is. Redevelopment of industrially contaminated sites is mainly controlled
through the “development control” or “land use planning” system. Contaminated
sites are a material planning consideration and hence needs to be fully consid-
ered as part of any application for redevelopment. Sitting alongside this and also
requiring consideration is Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,
national legislation designed to protect human health and the environment from
the worst contaminated sites. A voluntary approach to remediation is encouraged
with direct regulation seen as the last resort. The combination of the “carrot” of
redevelopment profits and the “stick” of legislative intervention has in general been
effective.
Risk Assessment matches well with the UK's pragmatic approach to remedia-
tion, and has long been established. The application of in situ and ex situ chemical,
physical, biological and thermal remediation technologies is now commonplace in
the preparation of post-industrial sites for redevelopment. The requirements of the
Landfill Directive implemented in 2004 gave a substantial boost to on site remedia-
tion, off site soil treatment centres (already seen commonly in Northern Europe) as
well as our home grown CLUSTER concept. 1 The removal of landfill tax exemption
for contaminated sites in November 2008, in combination with the landfill tax esca-
lator is anticipated to give the remediation sector a further boost, although the effects
are as yet hard to discern because of the economic downturn. Remediation sites can
also get tax benefits via Remediation Corporation Tax Relief, currently equivalent
to an additional 14% of the remediation costs for developers. However, problem-
atic waste streams still exist for which there are no available technology solutions
or where the available solutions have significant other environmental impacts (e.g.
thermal treatment). There is a danger that prohibitively high landfill costs for such
waste streams will result in some sites being made safe and “moth-balled” rather
than being returned to beneficial use.
Of course the UK approach is not a panacea, and there are some problems in
this approach to industrial site remediation that are home-grown. Among these are
the UK interpretation of the definition of waste, the legislative requirements of
the “waste label” for soils, and identifying when materials cease to be a waste.
1 In CLUSTER contaminated soils from “donor” sites are treated at a “hub” site (where the
remediation technology is temporarily based) and clean soils returned to the donor site.