Press

For press enquiries and press passes, please contact Liz on 020 8969 1008, or email conference@newzeye.com  

BB interviewed some of the speakers for this event to ask their opinions on current topics.
Here's what they had to say.

Dr. Richard Boyle, HCA 

Richard has a very wide theoretical and practical background of investigating and risk assessing brownfield sites.  This started within academia, where he gained a BSc, MSc and PhD in earth science and environmental topics and remediation, which has been followed with over 8 years experience in environmental consultancies.  

What do you predict will be major brownfield issues in 2020? 
I’d have to say that sustainability issues will be at the fore.  The framework to be published by the SuRF UK will be used commonplace and the indicators will have been developed and be thoroughly understood.  Decisions on contamination and flooding will be made much earlier, which will really enhance densification and much improved land use practices in urban areas.  The former uses of land will be taken into account much more, with, for example, green space over most contaminated, industry / commercial uses kept where industry was, and housing in cleanest areas. 
 
If you could choose one regeneration project that you could magically complete right now, which would it be and why? Extremely tricky one this.  There are so many regeneration projects out there that have been dramatically hit over the last year or so that I think I would have to really use the ‘magic’ to finish all of them!  The slowing down, and in some cases, the complete cessation of schemes is really hitting the local communities – it is the locals that are continuing to experience blight of dereliction or contamination and the real psychological affects and health issues that that can accompany living near to such land. 

What do you think are the three biggest brownfield developments/achievements from this year? 
1. OK, a little over a year ago now, but undoubtedly the most overriding achievement in the brownfield sector has to be the acceptance by government of the National Brownfield Strategy for England (NBFS).  This shows a real commitment by Government to continued sustainable brownfield development and has helped put all other initiatives into perspective and show what needs to be done to make things better and how this could be achieved.  The ramifications of the NBFS will be felt for years. 

2. The NBFS has prompted my second achievement, which is the combined resources of industry and the regulators working together to address some of the fundamental issues affecting us to get the job done.  This combined working should have happened years ago, but the efforts of all those working together should be celebrated.  Excellent examples include the initiatives of industry working together to generate GACs for an extremely large amount of compounds.  However, the most important has to be: 

3. The “Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice”.  I think this is the defining joint initiative between industry, including members of the Soil and Groundwater Technology Association (SAGTA), and the Environment Agency as facilitated by CL:AIRE and funded by the Homes and Communities Agency.  Finally, we are starting to appropriately consider what is and is not a waste on sites as the assessment has moved to a risk-based approach.  At last valuable resources do not have to be unnecessarily landfilled!  The hard work of the Steering Committee and the commendable “better regulation” stance by the Environment Agency are ongoing to try to facilitate the movement of materials between sites will enhance the CoP – and industry – even further. 

If you could change one piece of legislation/regulation what would it be and why? 
It would inevitably be Part IIA, but potentially for different reasons than you might expect.  Sure the regime is complex, but it is a complex issue full stop, but I think the regime is fully workable.  However – and I’m sure I’ll get flack for this – I’d change two things: firstly to remove the contaminated land remit from the Environment Agency and secondly to remove the final decision on what is or is not SPOSH away from local authorities. 

Taking the second issue first, I think only when decisions on SPOSH are removed from the local authority is when we will really be able to address the issues of what is or is not unacceptable intake.  One part of the issue is that from 2009, there are 325 local authorities in England - how can there be 325 different versions of SPOSH?  But more importantly, how can a local authority determine a site based upon, for example, BaP at 1.1mg/kg – which has happened very recently – and then tolerate even anything more than trace (i.e. really nothing) concentrations on a (re)development site?  With such low levels forming the basis of the determination, it effectively means overly conservative concentrations are prescribed for the redevelopment, since under PPS23, “as a minimum, after carrying out the development and commencement of its use, the land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the EPA 1990.”  Therefore, I also think the removal of the SPOSH decision will enable further progress on what really are appropriate levels of contaminants for any new (re)development to be made.   

Relating to the other aspect, the Environment Agency appears to have few real resources to commit towards contaminated land, including the CLEA model, SGVs or research.  Therefore, I’d propose that another organisation – perhaps called the Contaminated Land Expert Agency, so a real CLEA – be established.  It should have the appropriate resources to collate data from previous and ongoing investigations, commission and disseminate research and training, and have full investigative powers (although I’d still leave this to the local authorities for all but the most difficult sites).  Therefore, this new organisation could make informed decisions on what could be construed as SPOSH.  The Soils Directive is likely to return so setting up this organisation in the short-term would enable the fallout from the Directive to be better managed to reduce the impacts.  The resources needed for this organisation would ultimately be recouped from within UK plc, since new developments would occur faster and are not overly burdened with unnecessary remediation, which will therefore help the economy, reduce house prices and give certainty to brownfield regeneration, so attracting more developers and reducing the pressures on greenfield sites.  In addition, as the organisation would help re-establish the main aims of Part IIA to only target the worst sites and they would be completed faster with a better understanding of SPOSH, it would reduce health effects on the public on Part IIA sites who would not be scared half to death, which probably amounts to more serious health effects than the levels of contaminants on many sites actually present. 

Ultimately, I think these two aspects would make the industry more sustainable, provide a much better use of public resources and further industry understanding and technical competencies.  In addition, it would allow for the urban renaissance to finally take hold.                                 

John Crowther, SiLC and Mouchel 

John Crowther of SiLC and Mouchel is one of the most experienced engineers in the UK in the field of brownfield land investigation and remediation, with experience dating back to 1977 when he worked on a number of former steelworks sites.  Since then he has been responsible for project management of numerous schemes on former gasworks, collieries, landfills, chemical works etc with associated legal and technical waste issues. 

What do you predict will be major brownfield issues in 2020?
The SPOSH debate will still be going on! 

If you could choose one regeneration project that you could magically complete right now, which would it be and why?
Some horrendous third world shanty town to make an example of what could be done to make people’s lives better.  

What do you think are the three biggest brownfield developments/achievements from this year?
Olympics, Liverpool 1 shopping centre, the Industry Code of Practice on Waste definition. 

If you could change one piece of legislation/regulation what would it be and why?
The new tax relief legislation to take the place of landfill tax exemption – it doesn’t! We need a stimulus now!

Ian Heaseman, Taylor Wimpey
Coming from an earth sciences background, Ian has twenty years experience in industry, consultancy and academia within the area of environmental assessment and management. Ian’s main area of expertise is brownfield regeneration, focusing on site characterisation, risk assessment and remediation, as well as policy and legislative matters