Interview with:

·  The Assistant Director of Environmental Services, Steve Goulette;

·  The Pollution Team Leader, Steve Wilcock; and

·  The Senior Pollution Officer, John Newington.

Amended Report Attached

The Chairman welcomed the Assistant Director of Environmental Services, Steve Goulette, the Pollution Team Leader, Steve Wilcock and the Senior Pollution Officer, John Newington to the meeting.  The Committee received a presentation on the Contaminated Land Strategy, attached at Appendix A.  This highlighted the statutory duties on the Council and the progress in reviewing the strategy.  The existing strategy fulfilled the Council’s duties and was in line with government guidance.  It was, however, being updated as it had been produced in 2001 and processes and software in the Council had since changed. 

The Council did not proactively look for contaminated land, but nevertheless pursued its statutory role under Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act (EPA) 1990.  In response to a question, Mr Goulette advised Members that remediation of land would be undertaken as part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) process.  He also highlighted that Section 106 Agreement (S106) money was a method in remedying contaminated land.  The Committee agreed that the strategy should incorporate that a S106 be sought for remediation of land where appropriate.

Occasionally new information related to contamination within the Borough was highlighted through environmental searches for public conveyance checks or directly from the public.  All information regarding suspected contamination was investigated and dealt with appropriately.  The contaminated land ‘prioritisation working list’ was updated to reflect and new information.

Mr Wilcock informed Members that the majority of contaminated land was as a result of industrial activity, but that contamination conditions were also routinely put on agricultural land.  Contaminated sites were continually monitored to ensure that risks of contamination did not change, pollutant linkages of the contamination source, its possible pathways and its receptors were therefore monitored to ensure that the receptor was not at risk of contamination.  Receptors were living organisms, ecological systems or property which may be harmed by contamination.  Remediation was not immediately required unless there was a significant risk of contamination to the receptor.  When a potential risk was evidenced, remediation options were investigated in accordance with the Contaminated Land Strategy. 

A Member noted that internet based companies had previously raised unnecessary concern with regard to areas of mild contamination and asked if this continued to be the case.  Members were advised that the information was commercially available to companies and that a number of companies had taken the information and provided customers their own interpretation on the data sets.  However, the initial heightened public concern stemming from internet based companies had reduced significantly.  Mr Goulette informed Members that initial investigations of the sites originally identified as having a potential contamination risk had resulted in the contaminated land list being reduced.

The Chairman thanked the witnesses for an informative presentation and agreed to consider the draft contaminated land strategy at its meeting on 26 January 2010. 

Members noted that all suspected contaminated land was investigated and agreed that the strategy should incorporate a method for residents to report suspected contaminated land.  Members also felt that as the Council’s progress of remediation using its statutory function under Part IIA of the EPA 1990 legislation was necessarily cautious, time consuming and therefore slow, most progress was made through the use of the planning process and referrals of new cases.  Members agreed that the strategy should reflect this and therefore should include how information was supplied to the public to help them to recognise and identify contaminated land.  The Committee agreed to determine whether a further review of contaminated land was required after it had received the draft strategy.  Members did however note that the Committee may duplicate the work of Local Development Document Advisory Group (LDDAG) by reviewing Contaminated Land, given that it was a process part of the LDF.  The Committee therefore agreed that the Chairman should contact the Chair of LDDAG to determine whether this would be unnecessary duplication or if they felt that this would be a positive contribution.

Resolved:   That

a)  The Contaminated Land Strategy highlight the role Section 106 Agreements have in assuring remediation of land where appropriate;

b)  The Contaminated Land Strategy incorporate a method for residents to report suspected contaminated land;

c)  The Contaminated Land Strategy highlight how information was supplied to the public to help them to recognise and identify sites of possible contamination;

d)  The Chairman contact the Chair of Local Development Document Advisory Group to determine whether the proposed review of contaminated land would duplicate its work or if they felt that the review would be a positive contribution.