In a nutshell: Brownfield targets and the landfill directive
Brownfield development is a key plank of government policy on regeneration and equally its strategy for sustainable communities.
However, new regulations from Brussels have the potential to upset the present momentum.
At issue is the implementation of the 1999 European Union landfill directive. When this new legislation comes into force fully in July it will end the current UK practice of co-disposal and significantly increase the cost of getting rid of contaminated soil from cleaned-up brownfield sites.
Contaminated soil has traditionally been classified as 'special waste' and mixed with non-hazardous waste and sent to landfill sites for disposal. Contaminated soils account for up to one million tonnes of so-called 'special wastes' arising annually.
However, the 1999 directive effectively bans this practice. Co-disposal will have to end. The fear is that lack of treatment and disposal capacity will act as a very real obstacle to the regeneration of brownfield sites.
Behind the scenes (at a recent Hazardous Waste forum) there is talk of a "crisis for the land remediation and development industries" since the industry will be generating contaminated soils when there is limited treatment technology and capacity available and "little or no available waste disposal route".
Last year the distinguished architect Lord Rogers, who chaired the government’s Urban Task Force, wrote to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott stating that regeneration was set to become "vastly more expensive" as landfill capacity is lost and gate fees at the small number of sites licensed to take contaminated soils, which will now be classified as hazardous waste, inevitably goes up.
At this juncture no-one knows how much costs will rise but ministers have been told that these could increase by between 50 and 70 per cent. Environment minister Elliot Morley has suggested the hike could be as much as 100 per cent.
The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has been criticised for being slow to appreciate the gravity of the position.
Morley has acknowledged that "there are clearly some uncertainties with respect to future capacity and the government will play its part to put in place the necessary legislative requirements and to provide the clarity needed by the waste industry".
Alarm bells have been sounding around Whitehall and have prompted a flurry of activity.
The Hazardous Waste Forum, set up by the government a year ago, has been exploring the issues.
In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has set up a task group to look specifically at the impact of the landfill directive on brownfield regeneration.
An ODPM spokesman said: "The work done by the task group has already proved very valuable in identifying a range of measures that can help mitigate the impact of the directive on the remediation of brownfield land. More work has also been commissioned under the framework of the Hazardous Waste Forum."
"Regeneration minister Keith Hill has made it clear that he is keen that ODPM does all it can to ensure that the implementation of the landfill directive does not create undue obstacles to the regeneration of brownfield land.
"Officials within ODPM will be following up the issues raised by the task group with Defra and the Environment Agency and where appropriate will take them forward through the Hazardous Waste Forum."
Liberal Democrat MP Sue Doughty has been raising the profile of the issue in Parliament. She has accused Whitehall of sitting on its hands for too long. But she also has concrete proposals.
"The government should make a distinction between new and historic hazardous waste from brownfield sites.
"The Liberal Democrats believe a temporary lower rate of landfill tax for historic waste from brownfield sites should be considered to help developers secure the investment needed to clean-up and develop brownfield sites until sufficient on-site remediation facilities are available."
The Barker Review of Housing Supply did suggest the extension of the contaminated land tax credit and grants to land that has lain derelict for a certain period of time.
Doughty thinks that is something else that ministers should consider "as a priority".
Data collated by the Environment Agency (EA) has suggested that the number of 'merchant' landfill sites available to take hazardous waste could fall to just a dozen.
The position looks like being particularly acute in the Thames region of England and in Wales where no such facilities will be available.
To date the EA has issued only four merchant sites with permits to take hazardous waste under the new regime. Other permits are pending.
As well as disposal in dedicated hazardous waste landfills, some hazardous waste can be treated to a stable non-reactive state and managed in a separate 'cell' in a non-hazardous landfill.
To date four landfill operators have been permitted for such cells with well over 30 further proposals in the pipeline.
There are signs that the remediation and waste service industries appear to be aware of the implications and have started to make limited provisions, including acquiring some remediation technologies.
One report to the Hazardous Waste Forum has warned that there will be large shortfall in available treatment and disposal capacity until 2009 at the earliest.
The timescale for commissioning, gaining planning permission and constructing new facilities for treatment is time-consuming and fraught.
The government recognises this and recently urged local authorities to be less obstructive to proposals for new facilities. But no-one suggests that the picture will change overnight.
Initially it is expected that a significant majority of contaminated soils currently consigned to landfill may be stored, pending subsequent treatment technology and capacity being available.
Both the industry and the EA accept this is unsustainable in the long-term.
However, some form of contingency strategy looks like being needed while industry copes with what looks like being a problem for some time to come.
The EA suggests the new regime will increase pressure on the development industry to be more sophisticated in how it deals with contaminated soil on site.
In the past it has often taken the easy route of classifying it as special waste and sending it for co-disposal.
"It will be challenging," agreed Roy Watkinson, the EA's hazardous waste policy manager. That may prove a substantial understatement.
View further information on the landfill directive here.
View further information on the 'Hazardous Waste Forum' here.
Roger Milne
11th June 2004
Advertisement:
© Crown Copyright 2008