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 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 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 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.

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 paper is to demonstrate whether or not lenders are environmentally liable by the simple act of lending money. The concept of “lender liability” is one of the more critical issues which seems to be ready to upset the “apple cart” of environmental calm, which the English law enjoyed until recently. Why should banks be held liable for pollution and clean-up costs? The banks’ responsibility should end when it has granted the loan to the borrower to carry out its commercial activities. It is argued that a lender who becomes involved in the borrower’s financial management is unlikely to incur a clean-up liability, but it will become liable to clean it up if it forecloses or takes possession of the land. Can the bank be regarded as the “owner” of the land? In some English statutes, there is no definition of the word “owner”. Does a mortgagee in possession entitle him to ownership of the property to hold him responsible for liabilities for environmental harm?

The development of domestic environmental liability and the Trans-Atlantic position with the USA will be examined. The “owner” concept will also be critically reviewed to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property. The dilemma of the English courts with regards to lender issues and lender self-protection will also be examined. This will all be analysed and criticised in this paper.

This paper aims to demonstrate whether or not lenders are environmentally liable by the simple act of lending money. It will also discuss “owner” concept to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property.

In this paper, the “owner” concept will be critically reviewed to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property. The dilemma of the English courts with regards to lender issues and lender self-protection will also be critically analysed and compared with different legal systems.

The paper aims to examine the question whether legislative reform is the silver bullet for the problems generated by the failure of a company which is exposed to claims arising from the non-fulfilment of its environmental obligations. The limited capacity of the UK insolvency regime to facilitate the fulfilment of a debtor company’s environmental obligations is often illustrated with reference to some significant judicial decisions. However, no real picture has emerged of the frequency with which these issues arise, based on which firm proposals for reform could be advanced. This paper argues that greater regard should be paid to existing mechanisms which provide a means of enabling insolvency risks to be managed or minimised because these point towards the scope for these issues to be resolved through the environmental protection framework rather than through reliance on company and/or insolvency law.

Research was conducted into the statutory and non-statutory regulations (such as statutory guidance) and case law principles, which underpin the treatment of the claims against an insolvent (or potentially insolvent) company resulting from its environmental activities. This included research into policies which have a bearing on this area, developed through governmental and civic consultations and studies.

The paper concludes that the likelihood of a case for legislative reform being made out is weak, and the focus should accordingly shift to strengthening the effectiveness of existing law, policy and practice.

This paper is the first (in the UK context) to challenge the perceived need for reform in this area, engaging with recent examples of such corporate failures and the impact of recent legislative and policy developments.

This paper aims to explain the changes to the liability regime for nuclear installations before reviewing the traditional heads of damage under the 1965 Act. It argues that while there is some welcome clarification of what amounts to an “occurrence” in the purposes of the 1965 Act, disappointingly, little has been done to clarify how concepts of personal injury and property damage under the Act sit alongside traditional tort notions leaving the law highly dependent on earlier, but not always consistent, case law. The paper then goes on to consider the impact of the new categories of compensation, introduced by the Order, evaluating the extent to which these draw upon EU law structures for environmental impairment liability. Again, it questions whether this approach will achieve sufficient clarity and certainty.

This paper is a desk-based legal research.

This study is a discussion of statutory material and case law.

This paper is a first in-depth treatment of changes to liability principles in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.