What’s in a name?

A bottle of champagne is on ice for the person who comes up with the most appropriate title for what has thus far been dubbed the Single Remediation Permit - a new initiative aimed at improving the licencing regime for the remediation of contaminated land. What's in a name? Matt MacAllan reports.


Continue Reading

Login or register for unlimited FREE access.

Login Register

Contaminated soil is considered waste, the treatment of contaminated soil is

considered waste management, and ‘post-waste managed’ soil is considered landfill.

Clear as, ahem, mud.

In 1999, the then DETR Urban Task Force, chaired by Lord Rogers, recommended

that an Environment Agency ‘one stop shop’ service be established, “moving

quickly to a situation where a single regeneration licence is available, covering

all regulatory requirements for cleaning up a site”.

Private sector initiative

Resource shortfall in the Department, however, meant that nothing was done.

Two years later, following continuous pressure from landowners, developers and

remediation companies, a private sector-led initiative has emerged with the

support of both the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),

and the Environment Agency. John Waters, director of environmental consultancy,

ERM, and former chairman of the Environmental Industries Commission (EIC) Contaminated

Land Working Group, now represents EIC members on the Steering Group of the

Single Remediation Permit initiative. He explains: “The initiative is jointly

funded by the private sector and government, and is driving towards preparation

of an alternative remediation licensing regime. We believe that there is an

opportunity to introduce appropriate powers, not through the use of primary

legislation, but through new regulations drawn up under the Pollution Prevention

and Control Act.”

Having convened first in December of last year, and following meetings with

a number of key stakeholders, the Group has produced a draft report for circulation

– available from the EIC – to be submitted to DEFRA in June, in order that regulations

may be in place sometime in 2003. An ambitious timescale, certainly, but, as

Waters explains, the market wants resolution: “We have had broad agreement,

across the board, that the current situation is unsatisfactory. We have been

knocking on the door of the Environment Agency and of DEFRA as the EIC, as landowners

and as developers, explaining that this is not coming from just one side of

the industry; that it is coming from all sides, from virtually everyone in the

market.”

The case for change

The report aims to first make the case for change, detailing difficulties with

current arrangements, uncertain and inconsistent overlap with other regimes,

and the need for alternative treatment approaches. Further, any new regulations

will need to address both EU requirements and UK market needs, including: the

potential for exporting technologies; regulatory certainty and predictability;

costs; the transferral of investment (in Mobile Plant Licences) from the current

system; and risk transfer, i.e. who should hold the permit, what happens when

the site is sold, and who should hold any financial guarantee. Further topics

of consideration include the application process and permit conditions, including

surrender, enforcement, offences and appeals. Judith Lowe, formerly of DEFRA,

also sits on the Single Remediation Permit Steering Group. She recognises that,

whilst presenting a valuable opportunity to free an industry that currently

has its hands tied, the Single Remediation Permit is unlikely to present a panacea:

“New regulations may not be able to shift everything that we identify as

problematic with the current system,” she says, “Permit application

processing will take a finite period of time. It will cost money – the Environment

Agency is obliged to charge for that. Permit applications will require information

to be compiled by the applicant. And they may or may not require other guarantees,

including some form of protection if the thing goes wrong. The additional costs

of getting a licence – maintenance costs, professional fees, may not change

very much.”

The name, however, will.

© Faversham House Ltd 2022 edie news articles may be copied or forwarded for individual use only. No other reproduction or distribution is permitted without prior written consent.

Action inspires action. Stay ahead of the curve with sustainability and energy newsletters from edie

Subscribe