Polluting partners
Both parties in a contamination dispute are responsible, says Pamela Coulthard
In the first appeal against a remediation notice issued under the contaminated land regime, it has been confirmed that house builder Crest Nicholson and former chemical works owner Redlands Minerals must pay for a multi-million pound clean-up of groundwater pollution at a site in Sandridge, Hertfordshire.
The site in question had been used as a chemical works for 25 years. Redlands purchased the interests of the companies which had run the chemical works (and consequently took on their liabilities), then sold the site to Crest for residential development in 1983. Both parties were aware that the site had contamination issues.
A remediation notice requiring the assessment and implementation of clean-up options for contamination which had leaked from the site was issued to Redlands and Crest in 2005. Both parties lodged an appeal against the notice, claiming that the other was responsible.
In July 2009 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs decided not to uphold either appeal.
It seems clear that both parties were at fault. Redlands was clearly an original ‘polluter’, while Crest failed to carry out effective remedial works at the time of redevelopment. Defra’s ultimate decision to confirm both parties’ status as ‘appropriate persons’ to bear the costs of remedial action would therefore appear to be correct.
The case addresses several important issues, including the apportionment of liability between two ‘polluters’. It also acts as a timely reminder that disposal of contaminated property is not necessarily a barrier to future liabilities and costs.
Pamela Coulthard is associate at Maclay Murray & Spens.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment