 |
 |
Hi Whilst I am delighted for the residents who have been put in an impossible position, the way this has been handled raises a few questions for the statutory regime in Scotland: 1. What is the impediment to following due process under the Part IIA regime – determination, remediation statements, cost recovery and hardship provisions procedure – and what do we need to do to fix it? This is exactly the type of site that the statutory regime was designed to deal with. If the regime is not being used for this site then what is the point of its existence in its current state? 2. By not following the Part IIA process, have appropriate persons i.e.residents been denied the opportunity to deal with the contaminated land by alternative means (which may not have been so costly) or to question the reasonableness of the remediation (Chapter C Part 5 of statutory guidance) which is being essentially imposed. It is recognised that a local authority can undertake remediation in ‘urgent’ cases under the regime and recover costs but this does not seem to be the case in this instance in view of the timescales involved to date. 3. On what basis can a local authority actually require a resident to find thousands of pounds for remediation where the land has not be statutorily determined as contaminated land? 4. I agree Gerry, what does it mean for other sites....is the door open to the UK treasury to deal with contaminated land in Scotland (as long as you get The One Show involved!!)? This puts into context what we are trying to achieve with the development of new technical research tools for SPOSH in Scotland...once we have them, the regime will still be broken in my opinion. Alison ____________________________________ mckayenvironmental Alison McKay BSc CSci CChem MRSC Independent Contaminated Land Specialist Tel: +44 (0)7912 572439 email: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] ____________________________________ The information contained in this email is intended only for the use of the intended recipient at the email address to which it has been addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination or copying of the message or associated attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender by return email and then delete it immediately from your system. Please note that McKay Environmental accepts no responsibility for viruses and we strongly recommended that you scan attachments (if any). -----Original Message----- From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gerry McGarrity Sent: 19 February 2014 09:35 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: UK government pledges £255K for Blanefield land clean-up Has this set a precident? <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-26249311> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-26249311 it was featured on the One show last night 18th Feb - (at the start). my understanding is the the residents have been courting publicity for a while and it has made it to the Scottish Parliment debate chamber . I understand SPOSH has been determined, but the site has not been determined as CL. and the intention is to remediate and avoid CL determination. There was a request to HMRC to waive Landfill Tax on remediation costs which were a significant component of the costs (c. £300k)which was rejected.