Search results

The purpose of this article is to examine the regime to remediate contaminated land in the UK set out in Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and to analyse the UK Government's intent and objectives in introducing the regime. The legislative provisions and the statutory guidance that accompanies that legislation are then analysed to determine whether those objectives could have been met.

A research approach was taken to trace the legislative history of Part 2A and to analyse the statutory provisions and the statutory guidance. The approach included researching Parliamentary debates on the statute, consultations on the statutory guidance, other information published by the UK Government, commentaries on the regime, and contaminated land regimes in other jurisdictions.

The paper found that the introduction of a contaminated land regime that delegates primary implementation and enforcement authority to local authorities, and that severely limits their discretion in doing so, has resulted in a regime that has proven to be unworkable in practice and that has failed to meet its objectives.

The article is the first paper to examine the legislative intent and objectives behind Part 2A and to analyse their effect on the provisions in the statute and the statutory guidance and their implementation and enforcement.

The purpose of the article is to show that the liability system established by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is unfit for purpose because its mixture of joint and several liability and proportionate liability makes it impossible to implement and enforce effectively or efficiently as well as making it expensive to administer. The article aims to analyse the liability system and its effect on the implementation and enforcement of Part 2A.

A research approach was taken to examine and analyse Part 2A and the accompanying statutory guidance, and its implementation and enforcement. This approach included researching the liability system of Part 2A in depth, liability systems in other jurisdictions to compare and contrast with the liability system in Part 2A, publications by the UK Government on the progress of Part 2A, and commentaries on Part 2A and its progress.

The paper found that the liability system introduced by Part 2A is too complex to enforce effectively or efficiently. The article concludes that the result is a contaminated land regime that has failed to achieve its purpose in identifying land that poses a risk to human health and the environment and in remediating it.

The paper is the first paper to examine and critique the liability system in Part 2A and its implementation in depth and to suggest issues to consider in its revision so as to replace the regime with a regime that is fit for purpose.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the remediation of contaminated land has been damaged, perhaps immeasurably, in a period of devastating and crushing austerity.

A legal doctrinal and regulatory analysis of the contaminated land regime under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 was used to investigate the extent to which austerity changes have affected future contaminated land identification and remediation.

Austerity changes have impacted upon Part 2A of the EPA 1990, the planning system and development incentives. The recent changes are going to contribute to the problem of the under-resourcing of local authorities and are likely to reduce voluntary remediation by developers. As a result, future contaminated land clean-up is going to decrease.

Originality/value is assured because, as far as the author is aware, there is no other literature in this research area dealing specifically with the coalition’s adverse impact on Part 2A; this paper fills the knowledge gap that existed in the research field.

The paper seeks to ascertain if there exists a uniform approach towards reporting on contaminated land in practice standards employed in Australia and the UK. The UK is a highly industrialised country and Australia is less so. The paper also tries to find out if the practice standard in a less industrialised country is less stringent than the practice standard in a highly industrialised country.

The paper compares the valuation practice standards in Australia and the UK. In the former country, formal guidance on contaminated land valuation was first published in 1994 by the Australian Institute of Valuers and Land Economists (now the Australian Property Institute) in the Contaminated Land Practice Standard. This document was subsequently downgraded from a practice standard to a guidance note, “Guidance Note 15 Reporting on Contaminated Land” of Professional Practice 2002. In the UK practice standards are contained in the RICS guidance note Contamination and Environmental Matters their Implications for Property Professionals. (RICS, 2003a).

Both Australia and the UK have developed significant and detailed guidance notes on contamination and environmental matters. The respective guidance notes reflect the varying socio‐economic backgrounds of the two countries in particular differing industrial legacies. Despite a high degree of similarity in the approaches and procedures adopted there are nonetheless significant differences across the two sets of standards. The extended guidance in the UK highlights the increasing knowledge on contamination and environmental matters as it affects all types of chartered surveyors rather than focussing solely on the valuation function. In contrast the Australian guidance note appears to be more prescriptive concentrating on the details of the valuation role.

Contaminated land is an environmental problem that causes great concerns among the general public, landowners, occupiers, investors and financial institutions. Despite the negative image of contaminated land, valuers are from time to time instructed to assess its market value. In this regard, valuation institutions in most developed countries have prepared a practice standard to help members report on contaminated land. Each country has its unique socio‐economic background. The various practice standards will no doubt reflect the respective conditions in their country and the reporting standards will be different. Thus, it can be inferred that there is a substantial difference in the reporting standards between highly industrialised countries and less industrialised countries.

The purpose of the project was to investigate environmental law issues surrounding the regeneration of brownfield land.

Following a literature review, an inductive approach and an interpretivist epistemology with a phenomenological focus were chosen. A constructionist ontological stance was adopted. A qualitative paradigm was selected to explore the issues in a focus group comprising industry, legal expert and academic contributors.

A critique of the literature on relevant environmental law issues including contaminated land, waste management, water pollution, environmental impact assessment (EIA) issues and finally the political agenda is presented. Contaminated land, waste management, regulators and legislation were discussed in the focus group. The participants contributed their experiences and proposed several changes to environmental law. However, water pollution and EIAs were not considered by the contributors.

Developers face many environmental law challenges when endeavouring to progress housing on brownfield sites including contaminated land, funding, waste treatment permits, water pollution and EIAs. The benefits of the remediation of brownfield sites for housing seem to be a political priority, but reform of challenging environmental law issues less so. Understandably, the legal complexities of Brexit will take precedence.

The literature review identified the need to research the experience of brownfield environmental law challenges and recommended changes to environmental law from industry, legal experts and academia.

There has been much discussion of the subject of contaminated land in the academic and professional press, particularly since the proposal to register sites subject to contaminants prior to the enactment of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Much of this work has focused on aspects of the regulatory regime such as liability for pollution and its remediation and on the consequences of owning a contaminated site in terms of the site’s value. There has been relatively little discussion, other than in engineering journals, on site investigations and how these can assist potential purchasers of land in avoiding acquiring liabilities with a contaminated site. Similarly, there have been few articles concerning the liability of professional advisers in this respect. Seeks to explore both of these issues by examining the role of conveyancing professionals in England and Wales. It contains discussion of how liabilities for pollution may be acquired and reports primary research which indicates that conveyancers may not, in general, be exercising their professional duties to protect clients’ interests adequately.

The purpose of this article is to examine the national law regimes related to the remediation of contaminated land.

The methodology used is comparative. Models for different systems are described on the basis of varying interpretations of the polluter pays principle. The regimes present in the Member States are then analysed to see which model they have adopted. A comparator from each model group is then considered.

This article presents three key findings. First, it concludes that the extent to which additional national legislation relating to environmental damage is permitted, which depends upon the notion of “more stringent” legislation, is incoherent where more than one interpretation is given to the polluter pays principle. Second, the different interpretations given to the principle undermine harmonisation. Finally, this has wider implications for how we justify liability for contaminated land.

This comparative study of the interpretation of the polluter pays principle, through its implementation in Member States, provides a valuable and novel insight into environmental liability regimes in Europe. It also demonstrates the different type of regimes that are developed on the basis of such different interpretations. Although the different national attitudes to contaminated land policy and remediation have been considered before, this article adds to this debate by suggesting a central cause of such variation in the shape of different interpretations of a principle of the European Union.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

This study aims at identifying the consequences of adopting statutory rather than market basis in assessing damages due to contamination to land. Most valuations undertaken to assess compensation for damages due to contamination on land are done with valuation methods prescribed by law for the compulsory acquisition of land.

A total of 80 registered valuation firms with experience in both compulsory acquisition and damage assessment participated in a questionnaire survey to ascertain the methods adopted in valuing when determining the compensation payable as damages due to land contamination and the need for a framework for such valuations, in addition to some archival documents relating to the relevant laws and some purposively selected valuation reports, which were reviewed.

The results of the analysis indicate that the use of compulsory acquisition valuation methods results in inadequate damages, which engenders conflicts among the stakeholders. The absence of any framework for damage assessment is responsible for the current practice in the Niger Delta, and it is recommended that international best practices utilising market basis of valuation be adopted.

Most valuation methods available are useful for valuing commercial properties regularly traded in the market and not applicable to the Niger Delta, which is mostly rural with very few market transactions. It is expected that this study will enable oil and gas industry operators, professional valuers advising the land owners or operators in the industry and the government to differentiate compensation paid for compulsory acquisition and compensation required to placate those suffering losses due to contamination.

The findings will assist professional valuers to be more professional in valuing contaminated land devastated by oil spills.

Adopting the findings will engender a greater acceptability of the results of valuations undertaken in the wake of an oil spillage disaster and ensure a peaceful environment for the oil operators and the entire populace.

The findings of this study are expected to assist policymakers in emerging economies and professional valuers acting in these environments to avoid precipitating crises by adopting inappropriate valuation techniques when assessing damages due to contamination. This study is original and has not been published elsewhere.