CONTAMINATED LAND STRATEGY REVIEW - Wakefield · LFG Landfill Gas - a product of the degradation of...

LAND QUALITY INSPECTION STRATEGY REVIEW 2020 – 2025

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990 – PART 2A

FINAL DRAFT - JUNE 2020

Land Quality Inspection Strategy Review 2020 – 2025 June 2020

Document Control

TITLE: Land Quality Strategy Review – 2020-2025

DATE OF ISSUE: June 2020 – Final Draft

AUTHOR: Geoff Richardson

Land Quality Officer

SIGNED:

CHECKED BY:

Gerard McCormack

Team Leader – Environmental

Protection

SIGNED:

AUTHORISED BY:

Gary Blenkinsop

Environmental Health Manager

SIGNED:

CABINET APPROVAL

15th September 2020

PREVIOUS STRATEGY

DOCUMENTS:

Contaminated Land Interim Strategy Review [January 2015)

Contaminated Land Strategy Review [October 2007]

Contaminated Land Strategy [Jan 2003]

STATUS OF

DOCUMENT:

Final Draft

DISCLOSURE OF

DOCUMENT:

November 2020


Enquiries

Any enquiries regarding this strategy should be addressed to:

Wakefield Council

Land Quality Officer - Environmental Health

Wakefield One

P.O. Box 700

Burton Street

Wakefield

WF1 2EB

Tel. 0345 8506506

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Contents

Foreward 1

Executive Summary 2

1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Part 2A Regulatory Context 1.3 Planning Regulatory Context 1.4 The National Industrial Legacy 1.5 The Local “Wakefield District” Picture 1.6 Health Risks 1.7 Dealing with Contaminated Land

4

4 5 6 8 9

10 11

2 Aims & Objectives

2.1 Government 2.2 Wakefield Council Values 2.3 Land Quality Priorities

12

12 12 13

3 Progress to Date

3.1 National 3.2 Part 2A Inspection Programme in Wakefield District

Phase 1 - Site Identification Phase 2 - Prioritisation Landfills Phase 3 - Site Inspections Low/Medium Risk Sites Site Inspections & Phase 1 Desktop Studies

3.3 Review of progress to date

14

14 15 16 16 19 20 21 23

24

4 Detailed Inspections & Remediation Programme 4.1 General 4.2 Determination & Remediation 4.3 Government Capital Funding 4.4 Cost Recovery & Hardship Policy 4.5 Detailed Inspection Programme – 60 Priority SPCs

Former Crigglestone Colliery & Coking Works

27

27 28 28 28 29 29


5 Regeneration of Land 5.1 General 5.2 YALPAG 5.3 SPCs Remediated by Development 5.4 Voluntary Remediation

31

31 31 32 33

6 Access & Provision of Information 6.1 Public Register 6.2 Provision of Information 6.3 Communication Plans

34

34 34 34

7 Land Quality Priorities – [2020 - 2025] 7.1 General

36

36

8 Glossary

41


Page | 1

Foreword

Wakefield district has a rich industrial heritage, but in some areas this has resulted

in a legacy of contamination which has the potential to harm the environment and be

a risk to human health. Wakefield Council has a key role in finding out where

contaminated land is, what risk to health or the environment it presents, and, where

necessary, making sure the land is made safe. This Strategy Review looks at

progress made to date since the initial strategy was published in 2003. It sets out

how Wakefield Council will deliver this service over the next five years, 2020 to 2025,

in order to continue protecting the people of the district.

Councillor Maureen Cummings

Portfolio Holder – Communities & Environment Wakefield Council


Page | 2

Executive Summary

Wakefield district has a rich heritage of industrial past uses which have left a legacy of land

contamination with major industries being coal mining, textiles, glass manufacture, chemical

manufacture and the production of pottery.

The Local Authority is the primary regulator under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

for dealing with land quality issues. This strategy review recognises that there are primarily three

mechanisms for reducing health impacts associated with land contamination:

1. Inspection and remediation of sites when they are re-developed e.g. through the planning

regime;

2. Inspection and remediation of land that has already been developed, using Local Authority

powers under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and

3. The voluntary inspection and remediation of land by responsible parties (polluters, land

owners etc.).

A strategic assessment in 2006/7 estimated that around 2567 Sites of Potential Concern [SPCs] were

identified in Wakefield district. At the time of writing 1113 (39.1%) of these sites have either been

remediated or a decision made by the Local Authority that the site is suitable for its current use and

hence no remediation is required. The main mechanism for this is the regulation of the re-

development of former industrial land through the planning regime and the inspection and, where

necessary, remediation of contaminated land using the Council’s statutory powers.

In the interest of transparency the Council will promote the disclosure of information on contaminated

land to the laws and regulations governing data protection, freedom of information and the provision

of environmental information. During the inspection and remediation of existing residential

properties, which can be a particularly stressful time, a specific communication plan will be adopted

in conjunction with the Council’s Communications Team and project partners.


Page | 3

Government funding for the remediation of sites determined under Part 2A legislation was withdrawn

in 2013. This funding was used by Local Authorities for investigation and remediation works where

there was no polluter and whereby it could be proven that the land owner [normally residents] would

suffer undue hardship if they had to pay.

Nationally, the withdrawal of the grant has restricted the ability of many Councils to investigate and

remediate sites given current financial pressures on Council services. Wakefield Council has

remained active looking for opportunities to fund investigations within its district and was successful

in obtaining Environment Agency funding for the ongoing investigation of the former Crigglestone

Colliery & Coking Works. The Council has allocated a fund for remediation works to be used in

appropriate circumstances when the original polluter cannot be found or deemed liable under the

regulations. Use of the fund is also dependent on the correct application of the Government’s

statutory guidance and the Council’s Cost Recovery & Hardship Policy.

This strategy review sets out four priorities for the period 2020-2025 to continue the strategic

approach to the assessment of land contamination issues in the district:

1. Protecting the health of people living in the district.

2. Encouraging economic development through the Council and with developers to assist with

the regeneration and redevelopment of brownfield and contaminated sites.

3. Raising awareness of land quality issues amongst landowners, conveyancing solicitors and

potential polluters and to encourage a willingness to undertake voluntary remediation.

4. Funding for investigation and remediation works

The Strategy sets out a number of actions under each priority heading, to be implemented during

2020 – 2025, and also sets out how these priorities are relevant to the key values of the Council and

Government objectives driving the Contaminated Land Regime.

The Land Quality Strategy should be reviewed around 5 years after the adoption of this review in line

with current government guidance.


Page | 4

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 This document is the second major review of the original Contaminated Land Strategy which

was adopted by Wakefield Council in January 2003 and was produced in accordance with

Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (“the Act”). The first formal review of the

Strategy was undertaken in 2007 and was adopted by the Council in October of the same

year. Internal reviews of the strategy have been carried out in 2012 and 2015. This Strategy

Review (“the review”) is intended to supersede the Contaminated Land Strategy [2003] and

the Contaminated Land Strategy Review [2007].

1.1.2 The review assesses the progress made so far in implementing the 2003 Land Quality

Strategy. Progress up to the initial strategy review [2007] was:

Identification of all Sites of Potential Concern [SPCs] within the district; and

Prioritisation by an initial risk rating of the Sites of Potential Concern

1.1.3 The term “Land Quality” referred to herein relates to land contamination issues only i.e. heavy

metals/organic contamination in the soils, groundwater contamination, landfill gas and other

adverse ground gases. The strategy is meant to deal with anthropogenic [man made] sources

only and is not intended to deal with natural/background levels of environmental hazards e.g.

radon gas, heavy metals in certain geologies or diffuse pollution e.g. from traffic. The term

land quality also does not cover geotechnical risks such as landslip, heave, differential

settlement, crown holes, subsidence etc.

1.1.4 This review is intended to be an integrated report referencing procedures and policies for

dealing with land quality; information management systems put in place since 2003 and in

addition to this the review of existing and future objectives and priorities of the Land Quality

service.


Page | 5

1.1.5 This document contains various terms that have a specific meaning within the Act, the

Contaminated Land Regulations 2006 (“the Regulations”) and the Statutory Guidance 2012

(“the Guidance”). A Glossary is provided at the end of this document with full definitions of the

meaning of such terms and others related to contaminated land.

1.2 Part 2A Regulatory Context

1.2.1 Part 2A (Section 78) of the Act came into force on the 1st April 2000. This established a new

regulatory regime for the identification and remediation of contaminated land. DETR Circular

02/2000 provided guidance on how regulators should implement the Part 2A regime.

1.2.2 Under Part 2A of the Act the primary regulator for Contaminated Land is the Local Authority

with the Environment Agency being the enforcing authority for ‘Special Sites’. The conditions

for what constitutes a Special Site are set out in the Regulations.

1.2.3 The Act introduced a duty for all local authorities to prepare a Contaminated Land Inspection

Strategy detailing how they intended to inspect their districts to identify any potentially

contaminated sites. The Strategy was also required to develop a prioritisation plan for detailed

inspection of any sites where contamination could be considered to be causing unacceptable

risks to human health or the wider environment.

1.2.4 The Regulations set out provisions relating to the identification and remediation of

contaminated land under Part 2A of the Act.

1.2.5 The ‘Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance’ is statutory guidance that came into force on

the 6th April 2012, replacing the previous DETR Circular 02/2000 guidance. The Guidance

sets out how Local Authorities should decide whether land is contaminated or not.

1.2.6 This review has been undertaken in line with the Guidance requirement to update or replace

the strategy to reflect new changes in the regime.


Page | 6

1.3 Planning Regulatory Context

1.3.1 Where a potentially contaminated site is undergoing redevelopment, remediation of the land

shall be taken forward under the Town and Country Planning Act (1990).

1.3.2 Contaminated Land is a material planning consideration when determining planning

applications and Sections 170, 178 and 179 of the National Planning Policy Framework set

out the overarching planning policy on Contaminated Land whereby:

170. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

e. preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability……;

f. remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

178. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that:

a. a site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land instability and contamination. This includes risks arising from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation (as well as potential impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation);

b. after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and

c. adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is available to inform these assessments.

179. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.


Page | 7

1.3.3 The Local Authority, in its function as the Local Planning Authority must consider the

implications of land contamination on development. The Local Development Plan sets out

policies relating to the development of contaminated land in the Core Strategy and

Development Policies documents. The following specific policy on Contaminated Land is set

out in the document:

1.3.4 The Part 2A Guidance recognises that the majority of land contamination issues will be

addressed through the planning regime. The onus is on the applicant and their professional

advisors to undertake appropriate land quality investigations and remediate land where

required.

Policy D22 - Contaminated Land Within the district are areas where there are adverse ground conditions caused by unstable or contaminated land, including the presence of methane gas, as a result of past activities such as mining, quarrying, heavy industrial processes and chemical works.

1. Development on or adjacent to land where there are adverse ground conditions will not be permitted unless it has been adequately demonstrated that these conditions have been properly identified and safely treated. Proposals for development should include a desk study of the previous uses of the site identifying possible ground contamination. Where contamination has been identified or is strongly suspected, a full site investigation shall be submitted with the planning application. This investigation shall clearly identify the contamination, assess the risk to human health and controlled waters, and propose remediation requirements where necessary.

2. Development proposals that lie within 250 metres of a former or current landfill site

shall be accompanied by an assessment of the likelihood of gas migration affecting the development. Where necessary, remediation measures shall be identified to ensure the safety of the development and its occupants. Where development proposals are within 50 metres of a landfill site development will only be permitted if suitable investigations indicate there is no risk to people or property or where mitigation measures will provide suitable protection.


Page | 8

1.3.5 The Land Quality team makes recommendations for planning conditions and this usually

requires verification reports to be submitted post remediation. Appropriate verification of the

remediation of sites is fed into the Part 2A prioritisation and risk rating for each site. The

primary aim of the Council when assessing planning applications will be to ensure that, after

investigation and remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined

as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

1.3.6 The Land Quality team will provide factual information on specific sites to property developers

and consultants when “requests for information” are received. In addition we are also

approached for factual information during the buying and selling of residential and commercial

properties. This work requires regular maintenance of the Part 2A list and reporting on

whether planning conditions have been suitably discharged during and following

development.

1.4 The National Industrial Legacy

1.4.1 Nationally it is estimated that approximately 300,000 hectares of land is potentially

contaminated which equates to around 2% of the total area of England and Wales.

1.4.2 Industrial past activities have resulted in land becoming contaminated in a manner of ways

since the onset of the industrial revolution, which in Britain occurred some 250 - 350 years

ago. This land includes industrial land such as glass works, dye works, gas works, tanneries,

chemical works, metal production, mining and waste disposal sites.

1.4.3 Some of the past contamination has already been found and dealt with, particularly during

new development of previously used land, or in preparation for future development. There are

very few cases within this country where land cannot be restored to some beneficial use.

1.4.4 The prime objective of the Part 2A legislation is to provide a means of identifying and

remediating land that poses a significant risk to health or the environment where there is no

alternative solution.


Page | 9

1.4.5 The Government’s policy proposes a “suitable for use” approach where the risks posed by

land contamination will vary dependent on the proposed use and the environmental setting of

each specific site. The key objectives are to identify and deal with any unacceptable risks to

human health and the environment, to ensure that land is suitable for its current use.

1.4.6 Local Authorities, as regulators, should ensure that any burdens faced by individuals,

companies and society as a whole are proportionate, manageable and compatible with the

principles of sustainable development.

1.5 The Local “Wakefield District” Picture

1.5.1 Wakefield in particular is well known as an administrative and light industrial centre and the

district includes the five towns of Normanton, Pontefract, Featherstone, Castleford and

Knottingley.

1.5.2 The main historical business activities within Wakefield were agriculture, textiles, engineering

and mining. Textile mills and factories tended to be concentrated in Wakefield itself and its

suburbs to the west. Coal mining has also been an important industry in the district over the

last 250 years. Normanton was a major rail junction and marshalling yard, Castleford had

thriving chemical, pottery and glass making industries and currently produces confectionery.

Pontefract is particularly famous for its liquorice confectionery, and, Knottingley for the

production of glass and chemicals.

1.5.3 There has been a dramatic restructuring of the local economy over the last 30 years with a

shift from coal mining and other traditional industries to manufacturing, transport and logistics

and public sector employment. This shift has resulted in former industrial land becoming

abandoned, with significant environmental degradation, dereliction and in part potential for

suspected contamination. In 2005, it was estimated that approximately 700 hectares of the

District were disused or derelict, however many more hectares have been or are currently

being transformed by reclamation and redevelopment schemes. Wakefield Council has a

major role in attracting businesses to the district and implementing plans for development that

will deliver economic benefits for the region.


Page | 10

1.5.4 The Land Quality department is a consultee for planning applications involving land

redevelopment where contamination is a potential issue. If required, conditions are set on

planning decision notices with the intention of ensuring that adequate research, investigation,

remediation and verification is undertaken to validate that land is remediated to a standard fit

for the proposed end use. Major sites that have had, in some instances, extensive issues with

ground contamination have been regulated and remediated under the provisions of the Town

& Country Planning Act 1990 in recent years.

1.5.5 In some cases former industrial land has been developed for residential use before the

regulatory controls which are in place today were available. Consequently these “legacy” sites

represent the most significant risk of harm. The Council has built up a body of knowledge

about these sites through its Part 2A identification and prioritisation programme as set out in

this strategy document.

1.6 Health Risks

1.6.1 Various industrial practices have led to substances being in, on or under land, such as oils,

tars, heavy metals, asbestos, organic compounds, soluble salts and mining spoil that may

pose a risk to human health and the wider environment.

1.6.2 In the past, landfilling of waste took place without environmental considerations such as

adequate precautions against leachate entering the groundwater or the escape of landfill

gases. Land in this condition, if not dealt with adequately, can pose a serious threat to the

health of people living in the district or the environment, including pollution of the water

environment.


Page | 11

1.6.3 In terms of specific health effects the following is a non-exhaustive example:

Heavy metals - carcinogens, reduces IQ [lead] and many others impacts

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons - toxic, carcinogens

Inorganics [i.e. Cyanide] - toxic

Oils/Fuels - brain disorders, pulmonary disorders, carcinogens

Asbestos - Mesothelioma, Asbestosis, Lung Cancer

Methane/Carbon Dioxide - Asphyxiant/explosive

1.6.4 As well as direct health or environmental problems, land contamination can cause economic

and financial damage. Uncertainties about remediation requirements and liabilities can cause

blight, deterring development of land, adding to pressure on greenfield sites and affecting

urban regeneration.

Dealing with Contaminated Land

1.7.1 The illustration below demonstrates the three main mechanisms for dealing with land quality

issues from the historic industrial use of land within the district.


Page | 12

2 Aims & Objectives

2.1 Government

The Governments’ key objectives driving the contaminated land regime are as follows:

2.2 Wakefield Council Values

The delivery of Council services are guided by a set of core “Values”. The Land Quality

department contributes to the delivery of these values by ensuring that land within its district

is suitable for current and proposed uses and by aiding economic development through the

appropriate assessment and remediation of brownfield land within its District. In addition, we

provide information to home owners, property developers and property agents that assists in

the process of redevelopment and economic growth.

1

2

3

1

2


Page | 13

2.3 Land Quality Priorities

In fulfilling Wakefield Council’s responsibilities with respect to implementing environmental

legislation this review, in conjunction with the initial strategy, has been prepared with the

following priorities:

3 Progress to Date

3.1 Nationally

3.1.1 Previous estimates have stated that around 300,000 hectares of land in England and Wales

is considered to be potentially contaminated which equates to about 2% of the entire area of

England & Wales

1

2

3

4


Page | 14

3.1.2 The Environment Agency issued the report ‘Dealing with Contaminated Land in England”’ in

2016 providing a review of progress from April 2000 to December 2013 with Part 2A of the

Act. The following key points were highlighted:

The main priority for local councils' inspection strategies is to assess the risks posed

to human health.

Since the Part 2A regime was introduced in April 2000, local councils have spent at

least £32 million on inspecting more than 11,000 sites. This has led to the

determination of more than 511 contaminated land sites where remediation was

needed.

Although significant progress has been made there are at least another 10,000 sites

identified by preliminary inspection that need further investigation to establish the risks

that they pose.

Of the 511 contaminated land sites reported to the survey, the majority were posing

unacceptable risks to human health. Arsenic, lead and benzo(a)pyrene are the most

common substances causing contamination.

Of the reported sites determined as contaminated land, remediation has been initiated

on at least 493 sites, with work being reported as being complete at 433 of these sites.

A variety of remediation options have been used to clean up contaminated land, with

the most common techniques reported being excavation and disposal or capping.

The majority of individual remedial actions were completed within a year although a

significant number of sites took more than a year to complete all the remedial actions.

More than £52 million has been granted for remediation by the regulators using public

monies since the introduction of the regime in 2000. Most of this was spent on making

land and water safe for people to use and on cleaning the environment for

communities and to support growth


Page | 15

3.1.3 The survey responses show that the proactive identification and remediation of contaminated

land is an ongoing process that will take many years to complete. Between 2000 and 2013

public funding has had an important role in delivering the benefits that people, communities.

3.1.4 Government funding for the investigation and remediation of sites under Part 2A legislation

was withdrawn in 2013. This funding was used by Local Authorities to address contaminated

sites (legacy sites) where the original polluter could not be found or were no longer trading

and whereby it could be proven that the land owner [normally residents] would suffer undue

hardship if they had to pay for the remediation.

3.1.5 Nationally, the withdrawal of the grant has restricted the ability of many Councils to investigate

and remediate sites given current financial pressures on Council services.

3.2 Part 2A Inspection Programme in Wakefield District

3.2.1 Wakefield Council adopted its first Contaminated Land Strategy in 2003. The Council set out

a strategic and ordered approach to the inspection programme as required by DETR Circular

02/2000, the official guidance at that time. A phased approach was implemented with the

following phases of work:

Phase 1 – Site Identification;

Phase 2 – Site Prioritisation;

Phase 3 – Site Inspection;

Phase 4 – Site Investigation (if required);

Phase 5 – Site Remediation (where appropriate)

3.2.2 The Strategy Review will provide an update on work carried out for each of the 5 phases.

3.2.3 Delivery of the initial strategy began in earnest in 2005 with Phase 1, the process of identifying

all potentially contaminated land within the district. This was mainly in the form of capturing

former industrial uses from historical maps, old trade directories, minerals planning files,

landfill files amongst other sources.


Page | 16

Phase 1 - Site Identification

3.2.3 The process for the identification of Sites of Potential Concern [SPCs] was documented in an

internal procedural document “Land Quality 1 – Site Identification”. The current version of

this document is dated December 2016. The identification of SPCs was undertaken in line

with these procedures between July 2005 and May 2006.

3.2.5 The total number of SPCs identified across the district during Phase 1 was 3576. Other sites

have been added as the Council became of aware of new information. The biggest change to

the list was in July 2015 when a decision was made to include all existing and former

allotment sites as SPCs. Previously these sites were not included as a potential source of

land contamination.

Phase 2 - Prioritisation

3.2.6 Phase 2 of the strategy involved the prioritisation of all of the identified SPCs and this process

is covered in the procedural document “Land Quality 2 – Site Prioritisation”. The current

version of this document was published in July 2015. The document explains the use of

master records which covers the fact that different land uses were often in operation over time

on the same area of land. The master record for an SPC covers multiple records of a land

area where there are varying spatial extensions and classifications. The prioritisation process

involves the use of risk scoring to provide an overall score for each master record using the

following weighting:

Contamination Source Land Use Classification (47%)

Accessibility to Site Surface (2%)

Human Health Land Use Classification (19%)

Ecology (5%)

Surface Water (9%)

Groundwater (9%)

Site Lifespan (9%)

Risk Evidence (Used to Adjust Score ‘User Defined’)


Page | 17

3.2.7 The Risk Score for the SPC master record is used to produce a Risk Category from Category

‘A’ Sites (Highest Risk) to Category ‘F’ Sites (Lowest Risk). Figure 1 below shows the risk

score value ranges for each category as follows:

Figure 1 – SPC Classification

Category A - >800 Category B - 650 – 799 Category C - 450 – 649 Category D - 300 – 449 Category E - 191 – 299 Category F - 001 – 190

3.2.8 A decision made before the prioritisation of the sites was that all electrical sub stations and

gas governors were not to be assessed, due to the inherently low risk of these sites.

Subsequently all these sites were placed within the lowest risk category (category F). The

base number in 2008 of SPCs to be investigated in Phase 3 totalled 2844 sites (number

adjusted upwards following inclusion of allotments as SPCs. Annual progress reports have

been based on the starting point of 2844. Figure 2 below provides a breakdown of

former/existing uses.


Page | 18

Figure 2 – Breakdown of SPCs industrial land use across the district

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Animal Processing WorksAsbestos

Asphalt & Processing WorksBuilders Yard

BrickworksCeramics WorksChemical Works

CollieryCoal Yard

DepotDockyard

Engineering WorksExplosive Works

FactoryFormer FarmFellmongers

FoundryFuel Tank

Garage/PFSGasworks

GlassworksHaulage & Transport

Former HospitalLandfill - Category 1Landfill - Category 2Landfill - Category 3Landfill - Category 4

Landfill - UndeterminedMaltings

Metal WorksMill (General)

Mill (Food)Milliner

Oil Refinery/StorageLaundry

Paper & Pulp WorksFormer Pond/Infilled Feature

Power StationPrinting Works

QuarryRailway Land

Railway Engine ShedsRifle RangeScrap Yard

Sewage WorksSheep Dip

Unspecified TanksTannery

Telephone ExchangeTextile Mill

Timber Treatment WorksTimber Products Manufacturing

Textile & Dye WorksGeneral Works

% of Total Sites


Page | 19

Landfills

3.2.10 Landfills vary in size, depth, waste composition, age and engineering specifics amongst other

factors that have a significant bearing on both the propensity to generate landfill gas and

contaminate the land. As such it became evident that having a single classification and

subsequently one risk score for landfill sites was unrealistic. Figure 3 below shows the matrix

devised to segregate the classification of landfills into more defined realistic situations:

Figure 3 – Landfill Classification

Gas/Gas Mitigation

Potential Gas

Suspected Gas

Active Gas

Colliery Spoil

Construction/Inert (1995 - Present) Domestic Waste (1995 - Present) Hazardous Waste (1995 - present)

Refuse Waste (Pre 1965) Inert Waste (1974-1995)

Refuse Waste (1965 - 1974) Domestic Waste (Pre 1974) Domestic Waste (1974-1995)

Hazardous & Toxic Waste (1974 - 1995) Hazardous & Toxic Waste (Pre 1974)

Category Risk Score

1 190

2 285

3 380

4 475

Undetermined 475


Page | 20

Phase 3 - Site Inspections

3.2.11 Phase 3 of the strategy covers the programme of ongoing inspections which commenced in

2007-2008. The process is covered in the procedural document “Land Quality 3 – Site

Inspections”. This document was last updated in July 2017.

3.2.12 In order to determine that a site is contaminated under the Part 2A legislation, the Local

Authority must identify the existence of all three elements of a potential significant

contaminant linkage (PCSL) (SourcePathway Receptor). The identified PCSL must

represent a significant possibility of significant harm (SPOSH) or a significant possibility of

significant pollution to controlled waters (SPOSPCW) to determine whether any land appears

to be ‘Contaminated Land’, as defined in the Act.

3.2.13 It is extremely likely that only a relatively small percentage of the identified SPCs will be

contaminated to such a degree that they meet the statutory definition of ‘Contaminated Land’.

3.2.14 In 2006/7 all the Sites of Potential Concern were given an initial risk rating to enable the future

strategic inspection of the sites. Figure 4 demonstrates the breakdown of Sites of Potential

Concern at that time into the corresponding risk categories ranging from ‘Category A Sites’

(Very High Risk) to ‘Category F Sites’ (Very Low Risk). Very high risk sites are typically

existing residential properties built on a former contaminative industrial land use e.g.

gasworks, chemical works, and collieries with coke ovens. Low risk sites tend to be existing

industrial land. This process has provided the land quality section with a prioritised list of sites

that will enable higher risk sites to be inspected first.

3.2.15 Figure 4 below does not include allotments, which were added to the list in 2015.


Page | 21

Figure 4 – Sites of Potential Concern by Risk Category as recorded in 2006/2007

Source: MVM Database Outputs

Low/Medium Risk Sites

3.2.15 The inspection of low to moderate risk sites has involved a site walkover which has usually

been sufficient to adequately characterise the potential hazards and subsequent risks,

alongside a review of historical information and environmental site setting.

3.2.16 In 2014, a report was prepared by the Land Quality team, Decision on Site Status –

Low/Medium Risk Sites, setting out the Council’s decision to determine multiple Sites of

Potential Concern [SPCs] as ‘No Further Action’ under the Council’s Land Quality Inspection

Programme. Figure 5 below presents the flowchart that documents the Council’s process for

selection of these sites.

6

255

1276

832

53 37

Category A Sites

Category B Sites

Category C Sites

Category D Sites

Category E Sites

Category F Sites


Page | 22

Figure 5 – Decision on Site Status – Low/Medium Risk Sites


Page | 23

3.2.15 The above process builds various safeguards into the recommendation i.e. not to include sites

where there is a moderate to high risk of actual contamination; not to include landfill sites as

they require a more in depth study; not to include sites that are now a sensitive land use

[residential, schools etc.] and not to include sites that are on a principal aquifer or on or near

to a watercourse.

3.2.16 It was considered that these safeguards were sufficiently protective of human health and the

environment whilst allowing a pragmatic decision to be made on reducing the perceived risk

on multiple sites that are highly unlikely to ever be statutorily determined as Contaminated

Land.

3.2.17 Application of the flowchart process in Figure 3 resulted in a total number of 937 SPCs within

the district that could be determined as ‘No Further Action’. The sites remain on our list with

a current risk rating of 0, however the risk score on any of the sites would be re-assessed if

the Council became aware of a change to a more sensitive land use. Such a change would

however be picked up through the planning process.

Site Inspections and Phase 1 Desktop Studies

3.2.18 For sites where a higher risk is perceived or where concerns were raised following a site

inspection walkover, a non-intrusive Phase I Desktop & Preliminary Risk Assessment Report

is undertaken. A Conceptual Model of the site is prepared to assess any potential significant

contaminant linkages involving a review of potential sources of contamination, assessment of

the sensitivity of the environment taking account of the existing land use.

3.2.19 In the event that a Phase I Desktop & Preliminary Risk Assessment Report recommends that

potential significant contaminant linkages (PSCLs) needs to be assessed and quantified a

decision has to be made on whether or not the land should be determined as ‘Contaminated

Land’. In order to do this it is likely that an ‘Intrusive Inspection’ of the site needs to be

undertaken in the first instance.


Page | 24

3.3 Review of Progress to Date

3.3.1 The following table shows the progress made on dealing with Sites of Potential Concern

across the district between May 2008 and March 2020 by Phase 3 of the strategy involving

proactive inspection of sites:

Type Total [2008 to

2020]

Sites of Potential Concern – 2008 with allotments added 2844

Phase I Desktop Studies 153

Site Inspections 164

Site Inspection Reports 132

Sites De-prioritised/Deferred 40

Sites Determined as No Further Action 1111

Sites Determined as Contaminated Land 2

Grant Funding Applied for Site Investigation/Remediation £1.04m

Grant Funding Obtained for Site Investigation/Remediation £0.98m

Sites Remediated 2

SPC – Decision Suitable for Current Use/Remediated 39.1%

3.3.2 By June 2020, a total of 39.1% of SPCs have been deemed suitable for their current use with

no further action required with 2 sites remediated with grant funding giving a total of 1113

actual sites out of the baseline figure of 2844 Sites of Potential Concern.

3.3.3 The total number of sites requiring no further action includes a total of 48 sites that have been

signed off through the planning process (i.e. imposition and discharging of planning

conditions).

3.3.4 Figure 6 shows an overview of all SPCs within the district yet to be inspected [in red] and all

sites where a decision has been made that the site is suitable for its current use [in green].

Figure 6 – Overview of Sites of Potential Concern [SPCs] within the District

= Sites of Potential Concern [SPCs] = SPCs Decision Made


Page | 26

4 Detailed Inspections & Remediation Programme

4.1 General

4.1.1 The investigation and remediation of SPCs should only be undertaken by the Local Authority

through the Part 2A regime where there are no other appropriate alternative solutions.

Regulation through other controls should be sought in the first instance such as Environmental

Permitting, Planning, Building Control, Environmental Damage Regulations and other regimes

for waste and water. The Part 2A regime is also intended to provide a regulatory pressure for

landowners to actively clean up their land portfolios.

4.1.2 Since 2008 the detailed inspection of approximately 164 Sites of Potential Concern have been

carried out under Part 2A of the Act. The following notable high risk sites have been either

remediated or sufficient information gathered to allow a decision to be made that the land is

suitable for its current use:

Former Sowdill Works, Ossett – Remediated residential site [2014]

Former Soho Works, Wakefield – Decision: Suitable for its current residential use [2012]

Former Agbrigg Landfill Site – Decision: Suitable for its current use & low risk to nearby housing [2012]

Former Chemical Works, Castleford – Remediated residential site [2011]

Former Normanton Gas Works – Decision: Suitable for its current residential/industrial use [2011]

Former Blacker Lane Landfill Site, Crigglestone – Decision: Suitable for its current use & low risk to nearby housing [2011]

Former South Elmsall Quarry Landfill Site – Decision: Suitable for its current use & low risk to nearby housing [2011]

Former Timber Treatment Works, Midgley – Decision: Suitable for its current residential use [2010]

Former Coke Ovens, Ossett – Decision: Suitable for its current residential use [2008]


Page | 27

4.2 Determination and Remediation

4.2.1 The authorisation for the determination of land as Contaminated Land is delegated to the

Director for Environment and Street Scene. Any notice or voluntary action of remediation of

Contaminated Land should be in line with the current Wakefield Council Waste Strategy and

any policies therein. Remediation should be steered towards more sustainable methods such

as in-situ & ex-situ technologies rather than the disposal of materials at landfills where

reasonable and practical.

4.2.2 The Council has, within its district, determined two sites as contaminated land and has used

discretionary powers to carry out remediation under remediation statements which are

published on the Public Register:

River View/Pottery Street, Castleford – 20 residential properties investigated with a

Contaminated Land Capital Project Grant for £54,297 and remediated in 2009/2011 with

a Contaminated Land Capital Project Grant of £358,002; and

Laurel Court/Pildacre Lane, Ossett – 22 residential properties) investigated with a

Contaminated Land Programme Determination Grant for £49,175 and remediated in 2013

with a Contaminated Land Programme Determination Grant for £383,400.

4.3 Government Capital Funding

4.3.1 In December 2013 Defra withdrew the capital grant funding that was made available to Local

Authorities for the remediation of contaminated land where a polluter could not be found or

where recovering costs from land owners, usually residents, would cause undue hardship.

This left Local Authorities with a statutory duty to deal with contaminated land but with no

capital funding to inspect or remediate sites, using the works in default procedures. This had

the potential of leaving potentially harmful sites with no inspection plan and, where necessary,

no remediation plan.

4.3.2 In October 2014 Cabinet approved a budget allocation to be used if required to support site

inspections and fund remediation works in residential areas where no polluter or developer

can be held liable for remediation costs. The Contaminated Land Capital Reserve Budget

[CLCRB] is subject to a formal Project Start Approval process. Its use is at the discretion of

the Environmental Health Manager and is dependent on the circumstances of a specific SPC.


Page | 28

4.3.3 The provision and use of the CLCRB to fund these works was made in the interest of fairness

to the residents of the district and to control risks to the Local Authority and ultimately to protect

the health of the residents. The Local Authority must be satisfied that there is no longer a

‘Class A’ liable person who could be liable for the remediation works. This could entail the use

of a forensic accountant to either rule this out or to advise on whether a company is a viable

legal entity to pursue.

4.3.4 Use of the CLCRB is also subject to full application of the requirements of the statutory

guidance and the Council’s Cost Recovery & Hardship Policy.

4.3.5 In appropriate cases the Local Authority should seek agreement from the National

Contaminated Land Expert Panel that the land should be determined as Contaminated Land.

4.3.6 The fund shall only be used for remediation works e.g. excavation & disposal of contaminated

materials, replacement with clean materials and basic reinstatement. Basic reinstatement

would normally comprise of turf, replacement of boundary fencing and a small patio.

4.3.7 Should any affected party want a higher standard of reinstatement works this should be at

their expense and subject to approval of the project manager.

4.4 Cost Recovery & Hardship Policy

4.4.1 In the first instance, the Local Authority will look to ensure the company/person responsible

for the contamination or developer of the land [the Class A Liable Person(s)], pays the costs

of cleaning up the land under the ‘polluter pays principle’. However, in some cases the

company has stopped trading and the liability for any clean up may pass to the present

owner/occupier of the land [the Class B Liable Person(s)]. The Local Authority has a duty to

be reasonable and fair when recovering these costs and the Council’s Cost Recovery &

Hardship policy sets out how we will do this.


Page | 29

4.5 Detailed Inspection Programme – 60 Priority SPCs

4.5.1 Following the withdrawal by DEFRA of the capital grant funding, the Council has decided to

focus its inspection strategy on a list of 60 Priority SPCs and, where possible, continue to

secure appropriate remediation of land through the planning regime.

4.5.2 The Priority SPC List comprises of 60 SPCs with the highest risk score following prioritisation.

Details of the progress of inspections of the 60 SPCs is provided in the table below.

Top 60 Priority SPCs Total as of June

2020

Phase I Desktop Studies 50

Provisional Site Inspections 22

SPC Inspection Reports 13

SPCs Deferred Due to Planning Applications 3

SPCs Determined as No Further Action 34

SPCs De-prioritised 9

SPCs Determined as Contaminated Land 2

SPCs Remediated 2

SPC – Ongoing Investigations 1

Former Crigglestone Colliery & Coking Works – Ongoing Detailed Inspection

4.5.3 The former colliery & coking works at Crigglestone is the SPC with the highest risk score on

the list of priority SPCs. A Phase 1 Desktop study for the site concluded there were several

high risk potential contaminant linkages at the site. Further research was commissioned to

gain a comprehensive understanding of the site history and processes undertaken at the site.

Deep groundwater contamination associated with hydrocarbons had been identified during

investigations for a planning application on a nearby site. The Crigglestone site was indicated

as the likely source of this contamination.


Page | 30

4.5.4 Crigglestone Colliery was operational from 1870 to 1968 and the Coking Works from 1892 to

1959. Since the former colliery/coke works closed the land has been developed into Public

Open Space (Betty Eastwood Park), Residential Use (Fishponds Estate) and Commercial Use

(Crigglestone Industrial Estate). The redevelopment of the site in the 1970s was at a time

when clean-up standards were less stringent than current standards and controls.

4.5.5 The Council reached a conclusion that, given the sensitive land uses of residential housing

and a large park, there were possible significant pathway linkages that could present a

“significant possibility of significant harm” to people or the environment having regard to the

current use of the land. In addition the Council confirmed that the former processes operated

on the site met one of the potential “special site” designations within the Part 2A legislation.

4.5.6 A formal request was submitted to the Environment Agency who agreed that the land was a

potential special site and that the Agency should act as the lead authority for the site

investigation phase.

4.5.7 The Agency has access to central Government funding and agreed to 2 phases of extensive

investigations at the Crigglestone site over the period September 2018 – April 2020. Phase 2

reporting is expected to be finalised in July 2020. Following receipt of the report, the Council

will commence the legal determination of the site in accordance with the statutory guidance.


Page | 31

5 Regeneration of Land

5.1 General

5.1.1 Many contaminated sites have already been dealt with through the application of planning

controls during redevelopment. It is expected that the redevelopment of brownfield and

derelict land within the district will remain the primary mechanism for dealing with land that is

adversely affected by contamination. The Planning Development Management Service and

Environmental Health Service have developed a working relationship to ensure that where

redevelopment of land takes place, the planning process will effectively deal with any

contamination so that the land is suitable for its intended use. The following has been put into

place to help implement this process:

the production of regional ‘Guidance for Developers’;

the production of a Radon Advice Note for developers and their agents;

the review of all contaminated land information and reports in relation to the

redevelopment of a site that has been sent to the Land Quality Section for consultation

comments;

the production of updated standard planning conditions in line with the Environment

Agencies standard conditions; and

the provision of information, assessments and recommendations for dealing with

contaminated land during the consultation on the Local Development Framework.

5.2 YALPAG

5.2.1 Wakefield Council are active participants in the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Pollution Advisory

Group (YALPAG). YALPAG has published a series of technical guidance documents for

developers, landowners and consultants with the aim of delivering a degree of consistency of

standards and planning responses/conditions for contaminated land investigations,

remediation and verification reports. Published technical guidance notes are as follows:

“Verification Requirements for Cover Systems”, Version 3.4, November 2017;

“ Verification Requirements for Gas Protection Systems”, Version 1.1, December 2016;

Development on Land Affected by Contamination, Version 10.3, April 2019.


Page | 32

5.2.2 The YALPAG technical documents are widely used by environmental professionals in the

course of preparing investigation, remediation, and verification reports for planning

applications in the Wakefield District.

5.3 SPCs Remediated By Redevelopment

5.3.1 The following major developments in the district have remediated significant contamination

issues during the redevelopment works:

Redevelopment of Pontefract Gasworks into residential housing [3 ha]

Redevelopment of Lambsons Fine Chemical Works [17 ha]

Redevelopment of the Wakefield Waterfront [11 ha]

Reclamation of Sharlston Colliery [62 ha]

Reclamation of Frickley Colliery [80 ha]

Redevelopment of Westgate, Wakefield

Redevelopment of Featherstone Gas Works into a supermarket [1 ha]

5.3.2 In addition to these major sites hundreds of smaller sites with contamination issues have been

regulated in the same manner to ensure that the end users of the sites are not at risk from

contamination.


Page | 33

5.3.3 The following sites are also major industrial sites with land quality issues that are currently

being redeveloped or are likely to be redeveloped in the near future through the planning

regime:

Former Hickson & Welch Chemical Works, Castleford into residential land [35 ha];

Former Prince of Wales Colliery, Pontefract into residential housing/commercial premises and public open space [245 ha];

Onward Holdings, Ackworth into residential, industrial and commercial land [13 ha];

Former Jackson’s Quarry Landfill, Knottingley into residential housing [6 ha];

Former Wakefield Power Station into Wakefield East Relief Road and ancillary development;

Former Newmarket Colliery Site into industrial and commercial land.

5.4 Voluntary Remediation

5.4.1 The voluntary remediation of land by responsible land owners was one of the primary aims of

bringing into force Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Resources should be

prioritised to any land owners or polluters who are willing to work with Local Authority and/or

the Environment Agency to agree and implement remedial measures of contaminated sites

within the district.

5.4.2 In line with the Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance 2012 and Section 78H(5)(a) of the Act

the enforcing authority should consider not serving a remediation notice if it is satisfied that

appropriate measures are being taken by way of remediation.


Page | 34

5.4.3 The following SPCs have been remediated or are in the process of voluntary remediation as

part of brownfield regeneration projects:

Former Croda Hydrocarbons Ltd, Knottingley – remediation since 2010 of significant

contamination in the groundwater underlying the site by Croda who were the original

polluter. This project was regulated by the Environment Agency due to the majority of

the risks being pollution of controlled waters.

Former Oxiris Chemical Works, Knottingley

Ferrybridge Power Station;

6 Access & Provision of Information

6.1 Public Register

6.1.1 A ‘Contaminated Land Public Register’ is held within Environmental Health to record where

notices have been served, or a formal remediation statement has been prepared in line with

section 78R of the Act. The register is kept at the Local Authority’s Wakefield One Office and

is available for view, free of charge, during normal office hours. The charge to be made for

providing hard copies of register entries should be in line with the current fees & charges

scheme. An electronic copy of the public register is also available free of charge on request.

6.2 Provision of Information

6.2.1 The public, solicitors, consultants, owners, estate agents, developers and any other interested

parties will have access to environmental information under the Environmental Information

Regulations (2004). Exclusions to the provision of such data include where the data or

information is deemed commercially confidential or where a report is in an unfinished state.

Charges are levied for the provision of environmental information in accordance with the

current fees and charges scheme in Environmental Health. Any contentious requests are

referred to the Information Officer (Legal Services) to make an assessment on whether

information should be disclosed or not. The legislation and guidance promotes the disclosure

of information in the interests of transparency, openness and freedom of information.


Page | 35

6.2.2 Any information relating to land contamination through a planning application is within the

public domain by virtue of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

6.3 Communication Plans

6.3.1 Officers within Environmental Health will be carrying out on site detailed inspection of Sites of

Potential Concern in order to determine if the sites is contaminated or not. This will often be

on residential sites and can be a stressful time for residents because of concerns about

potential health risks, property value, legal action and potential costs etc.

6.3.2 An open and transparent approach is taken in such circumstances and a specific

communication plan is adopted in conjunction with the Council’s Communication Team.

7 Land Quality Priorities [2020 to 2025]

7.1 General

7.1.1 Section 2.3 sets out Government key objectives, the Council’s key values and how they feed

into the priorities for the Land Quality service for the period 2020 to 2025. The priorities are to

build on the work undertaken between 2003 and 2020 and are to a great extent set by the

Government’s statutory guidance for dealing with contaminated land. The key priorities for

2020 to 2025 are:

1) Protecting the health of people living in the district.

Encouraging economic development through the Council and with developers to assist with

the regeneration and redevelopment of brownfield and contaminated sites.

2) Raising awareness of land quality issues amongst landowners, conveyancing solicitors

and potential polluters and to encourage a willingness to undertake voluntary remediation.

3) Funding for investigation and remediation works

7.1.2 The following table demonstrates actions that are planned in the period 2020 to 2025 in

order to deliver these priorities.


Page | 36

Land Quality Priority No. Actions Timeframe

1. Protecting the health of people living

in the district by inspecting Sites of

Potential Concern

9.1.1

1.1

Crigglestone Colliery & Coking Works SPC

A key objective will be the legal determination of the Crigglestone

site and subsequent management of any recommendations for

remediation. The timescale for delivery of remediation works will be

dependent on the time taken to complete the legal determination,

however it is expected a significant proportion of officer workload will

be required over the period June 2020 – December 2021. Support

will be required from several other services within the Council to

assist with the delivery of this major project.

Ongoing, with

monthly review of

progress.

1.2

Part 2A Inspection Programme – Top 60 Priority Sites

The pace of the programme of inspection of Sites of Potential

Concern has been slowed to some extent by the withdrawal of

central Government funding for remediation and the primary focus on

the Crigglestone investigation. A review will be undertaken of the

Top 60 Priority Sites and an Inspection Plan will be produced for any

SPCs that have not been recently inspected. The review should

consider whether any additional sites outside the top 60 need to be

assessed.

Top 60 SPC review and

inspection plan by April 2021


Page | 37

2. Encouraging economic development

through the Council and with

developers to assist with the

regeneration and redevelopment of

brownfield and contaminated sites.

2.1

Economic Growth & Strategic Housing

Opportunities need to be taken to re-use or redevelop vacant sites

within existing industrial areas. The Land Quality team will support

and assist any regeneration initiatives by the Council, including any

applications for government funding as a matter of priority.

Ongoing

2.2

Former C6 and Nestle sites, Castleford

Technical support will continue to be provided to the Economic

Growth, Planning and applicant’s team to ensure that appropriate

remediation is secured to enable the proposed major redevelopment

of the C6 and Nestle sites as a member of the Wheldon Road

Transformation Delivery Group.

Ongoing

2.3

Planning Application Consultations

Respond to 100% of planning consultation requests from Planning

Development Control and continue to update the list of SPCs.

Ongoing

2.4

Pre Planning Advice

The Land Quality Officer shall provide pre planning advice including

attending meetings wherever possible. The provision of advice on

technical report pre planning will be subject to the discretion of the

Land Quality Officer in conjunction with the sites risk level and

current resources.

Ongoing


Page | 38

2.5

Voluntary Remediation

To continue to support the voluntary remediation of land in the

district including, if appropriate, residential properties at

Crigglestone.

Ongoing

3. Raising awareness of land quality

issues amongst landowners,

conveyancing solicitors and potential

polluters and to encourage a

willingness to undertake voluntary

remediation

3.1

Regional Planning Guidance

The Land Quality team works on a regional basis with YALPAG

sharing best practice and contributing to the production and update

of Technical Guidance documents. YALPAG guidance is used widely

across the region by developers and their professional advisors that

are looking to redevelop brownfield land within the district. The

continual and increased promotion of this guidance will be essential

in ensuring that developers and their consultants continue to meet

our high standards for the redevelopment of contaminated land.

Ongoing

3.2

Conveyancing Solicitors

An update letter should be sent out to all conveyancing solicitors

within the district to advise them that they should be commissioning

environmental searches for their clients when buying properties.

Reason – to increase awareness of potential purchasers through of

any land quality risks in order to make an informed decision.

Insurance products are available to cover any potential remediation

December 2020


Page | 39

costs further down the line. This would benefit the Council by

reducing the need for the local taxpayer and indeed the residents

from paying for contamination issues that could have been identified

during land transactions.

4. Funding for investigation &

remediation works

4.1

Cost Recovery & Hardship Policy

A review of the above policy has been undertaken to ensure it is in

line with updated statutory guidance. The policy will require formal

approval by the Council as will this Strategy Review 2020-2025

document.

September 2020

4.2

Crigglestone Site

To continue to work on a partnership basis with the Environment

Agency and Public Health England on the Crigglestone investigation

exploring all available channels to obtain funding for any remediation

costs on behalf of the residents.

Ongoing

4.3

Resource Sharing

To share resources and expertise across the region to reduce site

investigation costs e.g. expertise, monitoring equipment and provide

a peer review service.

Ongoing


Page | 40

8 Glossary

The ‘Act’ The Environmental Protection Act, 1990

The ‘Regulations’ The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations, 2006

The ‘Guidance’ Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance (Defra, April 2012)

The ‘Strategy’ The Contaminated Land Strategy (Adopted January 2003)

The ‘Review’ This second review of the Contaminated Land Strategy (2003) with the first

review being adopted in 2007

Apportionment As defined by the Act, means:-

Any determination by the enforcing authority under section 78F (7) (that is,

a division of the costs of carrying out any remediation action between two or

more appropriate persons).

Appropriate

Person

As defined by section 78A(9) of the Act, means:-

Any person who is an appropriate person, determined in accordance with

section 78F of the Act, to bear responsibility for anything which is to be

done by way of remediation in any particular case.

CLCRB Contaminated Land Capital Reserve Budget

Class A Person As defined by paragraph 7.3 of the Guidance, is a person who is an

appropriate person by virtue of section 78F (2) (that is, because he has

caused or knowingly permitted a pollutant to be in, on or under the land).

Class B Person As defined by paragraph 7.3 of the Guidance, is a person who is an

appropriate person by virtue of section 78F(4) or (5) (that is, because he is

the owner or occupier of the land in circumstances where no Class A

person can be found with respect to a particular remediation action).

Contaminant As defined by paragraph 6 of the Introduction of the Guidance, is a

substance that is in, on or under the land and which has the potential to

cause significant harm to a relevant receptor, or to cause significant

pollution of controlled waters.

Controlled Waters As defined by section 78A(9) by reference to Part III (section 104) of the

Water Resources Act 1991, which includes territorial and coastal waters,

inland fresh waters, and ground waters.


Page | 41

Enforcing

Authority

For land not designated as being a ‘special site’, the enforcing authority

within Wakefield Metropolitan District is the Local Authority.

For land designated as being a ‘special site’, the enforcing authority is the

Environment Agency.

Local

Authority/Council

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

LDP The ‘Local Development Plan’ is a series of documents, which contain

development and land use policies that will fulfil the Local Authority's

community, economic, environmental and social aims for the district in the

future.

Owner As defined by section 78A (9) of the Act as being: “a person (other than the

mortgagee not in possession) who, whether in his own right or as trustee for

any other person, is entitled to receive the rack rent of the land, or where

the land is not let at a rack rent, would be so entitled if it were so let.”

Part 2A Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990

Pathway As defined by paragraph 3.8 of the Guidance, is a route by which a receptor

is or might be affected by a contaminant.

Precautionary

Principle

Article 130 of the “Treaty on European Union” places the basis for

environmental protection upon the ‘Precautionary Principle’. Where, in the

absence of firm scientific evidence regarding the effects of a particular

substance or activity, the protection of the environment should be the first

concern. Furthermore, there is no need for scientific proof before

preventative action is taken. In summary, the reduction of risks to the

environment by taking avoiding action before any serious problem arises.

The Polluter Pays

Principle

Article 130 of the “Treaty on European Union” looks to ensure that the costs

of environmental damage caused by polluting activities are borne in full by

the person responsible for such pollution (the polluter).

The principle accepts that (i) the polluter should pay for the administration of

the pollution control system, UNLESS they are no longer in business; and

(ii) the polluter should pay for the consequences of the pollution (e.g.

compensation and remediation).


Page | 42

Receptor As defined by paragraph 3.8 of the Guidance, is something that could be

adversely affected by a contaminant, for example a person, an organism, an

ecosystem, property or controlled waters.

Register The public register maintained by the Local Authority under section 78R of

the Environmental Protection Act, 1990.

Remediation As defined by section 78A(7) of the Act, means:-

The doing of anything for the purpose of assessing the condition of

(i) the contaminated land in question;

(ii) any controlled waters affected by that land; or

(iii) any land adjoining or adjacent to that land;

The doing of any works, the carrying out of any operations or the

taking of any steps in relation to any such land or waters for the

purpose:

(i) of preventing or minimising, or remedying or mitigating the

effects of, any significant harm, or any pollution of controlled

waters, by reason of which the contaminated land is such

land; or

(ii) of restoring the land or waters to their former state; or

The making of subsequent inspections from time to time for the

purpose of keeping under review the condition of the land or waters.

Risk As defined by paragraph 3.1 of the Guidance, means the combination of: (a)

the likelihood that harm, or pollution of water, will occur as a result of

contaminants in, on or under the land; and (b) the scale and seriousness of

such harm or pollution if it did occur.

Site Inspection This normally incorporates a Desktop Study, Site Walkover Survey and

potentially limited sampling of a site.

Site Investigation This normally would include an extensive investigation of the ground

conditions at a site i.e. boreholes, trail pits etc. and a subsequent risk

assessment based on the findings of the investigation

SPC A ‘Site of Potential Concern’ is any area of land that is known or believed to

have been used for an industrial activity either at present or at some point in

the past.


Page | 43

Special Site Land that has been designated as such by virtue of sections 78C (7) and

78D (6) of the Act, and that further defined within regulations (2), (3), and

schedule (1) of the Regulations.

Substance As defined by section 78A (9) of the Act, means any natural or artificial

substance, whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour.

Suitable for Use The ‘suitable for use’ approach consists of:

1. Ensuring that land is suitable for its current use through the identification

of land where contamination is causing unacceptable risks to human health

and the environment, assessed on the basis of the current use and

circumstances of the land, and returning the land to a condition where such

risks no longer arise. The new contaminated land regime provides the

mechanism to achieve this;

2. Ensuring that land is made suitable for any new use, as planning

permission is given for that new use. This is achieved by assessing the

potential risks from contamination, on the basis of the proposed future use

and the circumstances and remediating the land before the new use

commences. The Town and Country Planning and Building Control

statutory provisions afford the mechanism to achieve this.

YALAG Yorkshire & Humberside Pollution Advisory Group – Land Sub Committee is

a collection of Local Authority contaminated land representatives.

Date post:	24-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CONTAMINATED LAND STRATEGY REVIEW - Wakefield · LFG Landfill Gas - a product of the degradation of...

Documents