i've got mixed feelings on it to be honest.
on a personal level, I am pleased for the affected residents as I would be equally scunnered if i were to find myself the same situation. It is hard not to feel empathy for the plight of the induvidual who appears to stand to lose a substantial investment (perhaps a lifetime of savings) through no fault of there own and some historical activity
but i also agree with many of Alison's sentiments in so much that the solution has dealt with the problem outside the established rules (i.e. outwith the realms of PIIA) and this means the validity of the arguments (or otherwise) wrt the site condition have not been tested and to a certain extent the Council and residents have bodyswerved the issue, the due process and the scrutiny which a P2A SPoSH decision would have tested.
I have no idea on the soil concentrations observed at the site in question, but what we are lead to believe is the relevant Council felt the gardens represented SPoSH. It would be interesting to know if this decision was based on a margrinal exceedance of an SGV (or similar , based on NOAEL. ID data base on minimal risk) or whether they were orders of magnitude above this and very possibly would represent SPoSH or used some other scientific test of SPoSH.
I read the HMRC Treasury response to the request for a lanfdill tax exemption, and think it a bit of a red herring TBH - there has been a mechanism for exemptionsto be registered with HMRC which existed for many years. These were applied for by the person carrying out the remediation and this was worked with the landfill operator and this has only recently withdrawn. I'm certain it could be reinstated if there carrying out the remediation was a will. (which there is not) and i accept tat any exemption opens the scope for evasion.
My personal opinion is the Treasury should somehow grant a LTE on sites which are determined as P2A CL, and where there are no Class A appropriate persons and the remediation is to remove the P2A pollutant linkage. - this would limit the unfair LTE and VAT elements which made up >60% of the proposed remediation bill in the Blanefield case.
I feel the "solution" of govenment and LA grants to rectify a problem on an induvidual site (which may or may not actually be SPoSH) is unsatisfactory. It doesn't seem like a wise spend of £600K, especially in austere times when various front line public services are under threat. - this £600k could have been better spent on schools, health service, blah blah blah.
I do feel for the loss of equity in the houses to those in at the Blanefield site , but similarly, there are thousands in the Thames estuary, Devon and Somerset who face similar (or far greater) financial losses to the value of their houses due to the recent flooding (which represents an actual risk and threat) . Who will want to buy a house anywhere that has been recently flooded in such a catastrophic manner, through no fault of their own?
Is it a case of they who shout loudest get funding and the less vocal or less well conected / articulate get left with the consequences?
that is my 2p
|