Memorandum submitted by SecondSite Property
Holdings (X24)
KEY POINTS
— SecondSite Property Holdings (SPH)
is the business within National Grid Transco which has responsibility
for managing the former gas manufacturing sites inherited from
British Gas at the time of demerger, and still retained in the
UK by the Group. It has extensive experience of the management
of contaminated land and its Managing Director, Phil Kirby, was
awarded an OBE in 2000 for his contribution to raising standards
of brownfield regeneration.
— Most of the potentially hazardous
waste in the UK is currently thought to be derived from the remediation
of former industrial sites, which includes the former gasworks
owned by SPH.
— SPH is concerned that the way in
which the Landfill Directive has been implemented will act as
a barrier to the reclamation of brownfield land. There is not
at present sufficient infrastructure in place to cover the shortfall
in landfill capacity. This in turn will increase the costs of
remediation and may restrict the opportunities to redevelop brownfield
sites.
— The aim of the Directive—which
SPH endorses—is "to prevent or reduce as far as possible
the negative effects on the environment . . . as well as any resulting
risk to human health, from landfilling waste during the whole
life-cycle of the landfill". The Directive therefore aims
to reduce both the quantity and hazardous nature of waste disposed
to landfill. Unfortunately, the Directive makes no distinction
between waste streams from current operations and the management
of the legacy of historic industrial processes. With ongoing waste
streams there is potential to reduce the quantity and hazardous
nature using end of pipe technologies or process controls. These
options are clearly not possible for historically contaminated
land.
— Whilst there are alternative technologies
to landfill currently available or in development, SPH has estimated
that these may be suitable for only 50% of the SPH portfolio due
to constraints which include the small surface area of many sites,
in-ground obstructions, proximity to local residential areas and
the current waste permitting regimes. Some alternative technologies
are unpopular and the public and regulators remain cautious. At
present, economically viable alternative technologies do not exist
in commercial form to handle some problem materials which are
consigned as hazardous waste.
— The environmental impacts of the
Directive as currently formulated will be positive in terms of
reducing the quantity and nature of waste landfilled. However,
there will be secondary negative environmental impacts which will
include more greenfield development, less brownfield sites being
brought back into beneficial use, and increased lorry movements
which will, in turn, increase CO2 emissions.
— The definition for hazardous waste
has changed subtly but significantly changed from that applied
to Special Waste. SPH have estimated that up to 50% of materials
arising from its remediation projects which would previously have
been consigned as Special Waste, will now be defined as Hazardous
Waste. (This classification applies to materials derived from
SPH sites but it cannot be assumed that a similar ratio would
apply to other historically contaminated sites). However, the
data presented in this paper is based on information using Special
Waste statistics, which were the most current available.
— Recognise, in regulations or tax
incentives, the difference between ongoing waste streams and historically
contaminated land.
— Consider what action may be necessary
to ensure a better geographic spread of landfill sites to reduce
lorry movements for those potential wastes where viable alternative
methods of treatment do not currently exist.
— Streamline the waste permitting system
to provide a more stable and predictable regulatory environment
for regeneration.
— Provide positive encouragement to
the application of alternative technologies such as thermal treatment
and seek to ease the acceptance of these techniques by the general
public.
— Work with regulators and industry
to provide much needed detailed technical guidance.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 SecondSite Property (SPH) is a business
within National Grid Transco, a successor organisation to British
Gas, and the owner of around 600 former gasworks sites. Its role
is to provide strategic advice and effective property management
to the rest of the group. In particular its aim is to tackle the
historic legacy of gas manufacture, so that its remaining portfolio—around
a third of that which it inherited in 1994—can be returned
to beneficial use.
1.2 Over the years, SecondSite has helped
to regenerate some 1,500 acres of former industrial land and has
earned the respect of both industry and government for its responsible
approach to this work. In 1998, its current Managing Director,
Phil Kirby was appointed to represent the private sector on Lord
Rogers' Urban Taskforce and in 2000 he was awarded an OBE for
his contribution to raising standards for the reclamation of brownfield
land. He continues to advise DEFRA and ODPM both formally and
informally on a range of remediation issues.
1.3 Our experience of brownfield regeneration
is therefore substantial and our contribution respected. Our reason
for responding to this consultation exercise is that, based on
this experience, it is our judgement that the Government's current
approach to waste policy and, in particular, its approach to the
implementation of the Landfill Directive will have a serious adverse
impact on the reclamation of brownfield land.
2. AN OBSTACLE
TO REGENERATION:
THE UNINTENDED
IMPACT OF
THE LANDFILL
DIRECTIVE
2.1 Why does this matter? Because land is
one of the UK's scarcest resources and it is in huge demand. Government
estimates that to meet the UK's housing demand, the country will
need to build over 145,000 new homes every year for the next 10
years. Government policy is that in excess of 60% of these new
homes should go on recycled land. This is a tough but achievable
target, so long as further barriers are not added to the existing
obstacles to brownfield regeneration, over the more straight forward
option of building on greenfield sites.
2.2 Unfortunately, contaminated soil and
other material from the regeneration of brownfield sites is thought
to be the largest source of potentially hazardous waste to landfill.
The way in which the Landfill Directive is currently being implemented
is a serious obstacle to its reclamation. As a direct result of
the ban on the co-location of hazardous waste introduced in the
Directive, the number of sites able to receive hazardous waste
since 16 July 2004 has fallen from over 200 to just 11.
2.3 While at time of writing that figure
has climbed to just over 30 there is still a very serious shortfall
in capacity. Latest Government figures show that in 2002, 4.8
million tonnes of special (or potentially hazardous) waste were
produced across England and Wales. Of this, an estimated 2.6 million
tonnes would be derived from contaminated soils. As a result of
the Landfill Directive-led rule changes in July 2004, there is
currently only capacity to deal with 1.4 million tonnes per annum
in England and Wales, leaving a massive shortfall of 3.4 million
tonnes, much of which will be derived from the remediation of
contaminated land.
2.4 It seems inevitable that, with a shortfall
of this scale, there will be a massive increase in illegal fly
tipping of hazardous waste. This impact could be counter to the
objectives of the Directive by discouraging the safe consignment
of waste to a landfill site. This, however, is not SecondSite
Property's area of expertise and others will be better placed
to comment.
2.5 At the responsible end of the remediation
industry, however, the problems caused by this lack of capacity
are just as acute, if different:
— Less of the regeneration necessary
to meet government housing targets: The lack of hazardous waste
disposal capacity will make it significantly more difficult to
manage the clean up of brownfield land or to find landfill sites
able to take waste. Many projects will inevitably be put on hold,
although the current impact is masked by companies which brought
forward work into the first half of 2004, with the specific aim
of avoiding the impact of the Directive. The real test of the
Directive's impact will be in 2005-06.
— Much higher regeneration costs: Where
landowners and developers have been able to identify sites to
take waste, costs have significantly increased. Already SPH has
seen landfill gate prices increase on average from £20 to
£30 to £65 to £120 per tonne, throwing the finely
balanced economics of regenerating many brownfield sites into
the negative.
— Increased traffic congestion and
pollution: Even where regeneration is pursued the distance which
lorries will need to travel to appropriately licensed landfill
sites will increase significantly—at time of writing there
is not a single licensed hazardous waste landfill in Wales, with
a severe capacity shortage in London and South East England. SPH
is currently collating evidence on the increased mileage which
this will require for our works alone, as well as the increase
in carbon emissions which this will imply. In 2002-03, SPH estimated
an average round trip of 88 miles from site to landfill. In 2004,
for the same portfolio of projects, but taking into account the
reduced number of hazardous waste landfill sites, this is estimated
as having reason to an average round trip of 174 miles.
3. WASTE MINIMISATION
AND NEW
TECHNOLOGIES
3.1 OF COURSE,
THE AIM
OF THE
LANDFILL DIRECTIVE
IS TO
CREATE A
POWERFUL FISCAL
INCENTIVE TO
THE PRODUCERS
OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE, TO
PERSUADE THEM
TO CHANGE
PRODUCTION METHODS
TO MINIMISE
UNNECESSARY WASTE.
UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN
IT COMES
TO TACKLING
AN HISTORICAL
LEGACY, SUCH
AS CONTAMINATED
LAND, AVOIDING
THE PRODUCTION
OF THE
HAZARD IS
NOT AN
OPTION AND
MINIMISATION OF
HAZARDOUS ARISINGS
IS MORE
LIMITED. THIS
SEEMS TO
US TO
BE AN
OBVIOUS DISTINCTION,
BUT ONE
THAT SEEMS
TO HAVE
ALMOST TOTALLY
ESCAPED THOSE
RESPONSIBLE FOR
PLANNING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE DIRECTIVE.
3.2 THE
ARGUMENT IS
MADE THAT
THE APPLICATION
OF NEW
AND ALTERNATIVE
CLEAN UP
TECHNOLOGIES CAN
SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE
THE QUANTITIES
OF MATERIAL
FROM HISTORICALLY
CONTAMINATED LAND
BEING CONSIGNED
TO LANDFILL.
BASED ON
CURRENT EVIDENCE,
THE LIMITATIONS
IN SCOPE
AND CAPACITY
COUPLED WITH
THE CURRENT
PERMITTING REGIME
REQUIRED FOR
THESE ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES, WOULD
STRONGLY SUGGEST
THAT THIS
IS WISHFUL
THINKING.
3.3 SPH IS
WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED
AS AN
INDUSTRY LEADER
IN THE
APPLICATION OF
NEW TECHNOLOGIES,
MOUNTING THE
FIRST EVER
FULL SCALE
SOIL WASHING
PROJECT IN
BASFORD, NOTTINGHAM,
DEPLOYING REVOLUTIONARY
NEW SOIL
VAPOUR EXTRACTION
METHODS ON
THE EAST
GREENWICH PENINSULA
AND MAKING
EXTENSIVE USE
OF BIOREMEDIATION
ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, FOR
EXAMPLE IN
LEEDS, PORTSMOUTH
AND PROVAN.
IT IS
OUR OPINION
THAT THE
POTENTIAL IMPACT
OF SUCH
TECHNOLOGIES—WHILE
IMPORTANT OPTIONS
FOR A
RANGE OF
REASONS—IS
EXAGGERATED, AT
LEAST IN
THE SHORT
TO MEDIUM
TERM. WE
ESTIMATE THAT
EVEN THEIR
MOST EXTENSIVE
APPLICATION OVER
THE
THREE YEARS
IS UNLIKELY
TO REDUCE
THE NEED
FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE CAPACITY
BY MORE
THAN 30%.
3.4 FURTHERMORE,
THERE ARE
OTHER OBSTACLES
TO THE
USE OF
NEW TECHNOLOGIES,
WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT NEEDS
TO ADDRESS
FIRST:
— IT
IS AT
PRESENT SIGNIFICANTLY
MORE DIFFICULT
TO GAIN
REGULATORY ACCEPTANCE
FOR A
REMEDIATION SCHEME
USING ON-SITE
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES THAN
IT IS
FOR AN
EQUIVALENT DESIGN
USING DISPOSAL
TO LANDFILL.
THE OBVIOUS
SOLUTION WOULD
BE TO
TREAT THE
MATERIALS FROM
A NUMBER
OF SMALL
SITES AT
ONE CENTRAL
"HUB" SITE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE
"HUB" SITE
CONCEPT DOES
NOT FIT
WELL WITH
CURRENT REGULATIONS
AND IT
IS THIS,
RATHER THAN
TECHNOLOGICAL FACTORS,
THAT IS
PROVING TO
BE THE
BIGGEST BARRIER
TO THE
TREATMENT OF
SMALLER SITES.
— SOME
OF THE
MOST DEVELOPED
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES,
SUCH AS
THERMAL DEGRADATION,
ARE UNPOPULAR
AND CONSIDERED
BY SOME
TO BE
A LESS
ENVIRONMENTALLY ATTRACTIVE
EVEN THAN
LANDFILL.
— MANY
TECHNOLOGIES DO
NOT HAVE
A TRACK
RECORD OF
OPERATING AT
FULL-SCALE
UNDER FULL
CONTRACT CONDITIONS.
WHILST ORGANISATIONS
SUCH AS
SPH AND CL:AIRE ARE
WORKING HARD
TO IMPROVE
CONFIDENCE IN
NOVEL APPROACHES
TO REMEDIATION,
THERE IS
A PERCEIVED
RELUCTANCE BY
REGULATORS AND
DEVELOPERS TO
SUPPORT SUCH
SCHEMES.
— THERE
ARE FURTHER
TRADE-OFFS
TO BE
MADE, SUCH
AS THE
NEED TO
CONTROL COSTS
ON REGENERATION
PROJECTS, WHICH
ARE OFTEN
MARGINAL, AND
THE TIME
THAT IT
TAKES TO
RECLAIM LAND
USING NEW
TECHNOLOGIES, WHICH
MAY ALSO
AFFECT BOTH
THE ECONOMIC
VIABILITY AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT OF
A SCHEME.
3.5 THE
ECONOMICS OF
BROWNFIELD LAND
REGENERATION ARE
FINELY BALANCED.
IN OUR
VIEW THE
COMMITMENT TO
WASTE REDUCTION
AND RECYCLING
SHOULD EXTEND
TO THE
WASTE REDUCTION
AND RECYCLING
OF LAND:
THE REUSE
OF BROWNFIELD
LAND FOR
MUCH NEEDED
HOUSING IS,
IN AND
OF ITSELF,
MINIMISING THE
WASTE OF
LAND.
4. JOINED UP
THINKING
4.1 Some elements of Government thinking
already recognise this. The problem is that policy in this area
is not joined up:
— DEFRA is concerned with waste policy
and regulation in this area, but only insofar as it relates to
landfill.
— ODPM is concerned with land use,
planning and urban regeneration.
— Treasury is responsible for creating
fiscal incentives.
4.2 Government needs to create a permanent
forum for debating policy in this area to ensure a consistency
of approach and break out of the current silo mentality. In our
opinion the regeneration agenda is the most pressing, combining
environmental, economic and social objectives. At present, however,
the policies of each department—not to mention those of
the respective regulators (EHOs, Environment Agency)—are
self-neutralising and this can be in nobody's interest.
5. IMPACT OF
SPH: A CASE STUDY
The results of the impact of the Landfill Directive
on SPH are being carefully monitored. Since the second phase of
its implementation has only recently come into force, however,
the situation at time of writing is still changing rapidly. It
would make more sense, therefore, to present this element of our
evidence—either verbally or in writing as the Committee
see fit—later in the year, when the situation has begun
to stabilise.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR REFORM
6.1 So bearing all these challenges and
obstacles, what should government be doing? The Government should:
— Encourage the development and
use of alternatives to landfill and issue guidance for phase III
as soon as possible.
Some claim that industry had five years to plan
for the implementation of Directive and should have been better
prepared for its impact, perhaps by bringing forward more remediation
and developing new technologies quicker. Industry has been working
hard to test and accept alternative methods of remediation. The
truth is, however, that although interim guidance was issued at
the end of 2002, the final landfill regulations on which the Directive
is based were not introduced until 19 May 2004, a mere two months
before their implementation, and even now the final guidance on
exactly what constitutes hazardous waste contains ambiguities
which remain to be clarified. This has made it extremely difficult
for responsible landowners, such as SPH, and developers to put
in place future strategies for remediation or determine priorities.
The sooner this guidance is finally clarified the better.
— Recognise, in regulations or tax
incentives, the difference between current and historically contaminated
land.
The precedent for differentiating between these
two already exists in reliefs and exemptions from landfill tax
for arisings from brownfield regeneration. This precedent should
be used to consider ways in which the tax and regulatory regimes
can be adapted to prevent waste policy interfering with regeneration.
For example, it has been suggested that some landfill tax revenue
should be recycled to provide fiscal incentives to support investment
in onsite remediation and new technologies.
— Consider what action may be necessary
to ensure a better geographic spread of landfill sites to reduce
lorry movements.
The current availability of landfill sites licensed
to receive hazardous waste is unsustainable. As a matter of urgency,
the Government should review the available capacity and consider
ways to encourage the development of further cells and facilities,
especially in the South East.
— Streamline the waste permitting
system to provide a more stable and predictable regulatory environment
for regeneration, including the requirements for permitting alternative
technologies and reusing the materials treated by them.
We welcome the decision of the Cabinet Office
to refer plans to work towards a single remediation permit for
brownfield land to the Better Regulation Taskforce. SPH looks
forward to working closely with the Taskforce to developing a
permitting system which offers much greater consistency of approach
for industry, and which speeds up the process of obtain consent
for remediation.
The implementation of the Landfill Directive
has significantly changed the way in which potential wastes are
being managed in the UK. This is a complicated issue that cannot
be discussed in detail within this submission. We would therefore
welcome the chance to present further information should the opportunity
arise.
13 October 2004
|
