Are you suggesting that such a document would be sufficient evidence to satisfy the planner/regulatory that risk are to be managed in the perpetuity (or life of the lease)? I guess it assumes the property is leasehold, that the terms of the lease can be agreed in contiguous with or in advance of any final approved remediation scheme and that the scheme (and its restrictions) are embedded in the lease document, which is them submitted as part of the approval submission.
At the risk of rendering the audience unconscious, the Australian system requires that where an on-going commitment is required from a third party (lease or adjacent owner/occupier) an independent Auditor (see Australian Auditor Scheme) is required to facilitate the legal agreement between the parties. This occurs, particularly in situations where groundwater remediation is being achieved by MNA over an extended period. Future tenants (and affected neighbours) are required to enter into a binding agreement accepting the long term commitment to maintain monitoring programs, not to abstract groundwater, and to facilitate active groundwater remediation should MNA fail to achieve agreed targets. This became necessary after sites with approved on-going MNA schemes fell into neglect after affected properties were leased (or sold) on.
Would such an approach satisfy LA regulators and be acceptable to the client and future leases in UK?
Comments welcomed
David E Jackson
|