DEFRA has carried out an informal consultation on Waste Permitting and this was our response. The formal consultation will take place early in 2004.
Please find below The Housebuilders Federations response to the DEFRA Informal Consultation Paper on Waste Permitting'.
This response has been made in relation to contaminated land remediation only, and not in relation to other waste issues (such as reuse and disposal of construction and demolition waste), nor to the broader issues of waste recovery and disposal facilities covered by the paper.
Introductory Comments
The application of inappropriate waste legislation (mainly designed for waste recovery in specialised facilities, or disposal of waste to landfill) to house building on brownfield land has resulted in severe regulatory obstacles, and these obstacles are becoming increasingly onerous. This has delayed and frustrated the reclamation process, in many cases without any meaningful contribution to the protection of human health or the environment.
The Housebuilders Federation recognises the review of waste permitting as an opportunity to develop better regulation suited to land remediation. However, the work packages released to date indicate that the concerns of the house building industry are still not being listened to.
Industry questions whether waste permitting (albeit in the form of the SRP or similar) is appropriate at all for the large majority of brownfield remediation projects, which are already amply controlled by other regulations. However, we would like to explore the potential for an SRP type permit where:
This would streamline and simplify the remediation process; and
Where there are benefits in terms of protection of human health or the environment through an integrated holistic approach to remediation
Our view is that this could apply to a small percentage of brownfield sites, generally the more complex ones using process based remedial technologies, and those that are not controlled by remediation notices under Part IIA.
If the waste permit is to fulfil a useful function for land remediation, the needs of the house building industry must be put at the centre of the waste permit process from the outset. Until there is basic agreement on the scope of application of the waste permit, there appears to be little point in answering the more detailed questions as to how it might be successfully applied. Therefore rather than answering the specific questions in the consultation process, we have put together some general comments on the proposals.
Special Context of Land Remediation
Unlike waste disposal and recovery which are processes to manage a rapidly expanding waste generation challenge i.e. managing a negative, brownfield remediation is a fundamentally positive exercise:
It tackles a legacy of historic contamination i.e. environmental improvement, whereas waste recovery/disposal is dealing with problems generated today
It is a lynch pin of urban regeneration and hence rafts of social and economic policy rest upon it.
Whereas disposal is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, and recovery mid-league (recycling), land remediation is near the top of the waste hierarchy, enabling reuse of the limited resource of land, and hence can be said to be sustainable
The Developer takes a positive environmental role as he, rather than the original polluter, normally funds and solves the problem
Because of these factors there should be an altogether different regulatory stance to land remediation than to waste recovery/disposal, one where the principle aim is to encourage rather than control.
Waste management licensing is the primary environmental control for recovery/disposal operations and can result in substantial environmental benefits. The planning process has primacy for brownfield remediation, coupled with Part IIA for high risk sites. It must be recognised that at best waste permitting should have a secondary role for brownfield remediation.
It is a given that brownfield contamination risks need to be managed. However, the main consequence of applying waste management regulations (primarily aimed at waste transfer stations and landfills) to brownfields is likely be the curtailment of the substantial social, environmental and economic knock on benefits of regeneration. These would far outweigh any benefits of the control of environmental risks by waste regulation, that are in any case controlled by other legislation.
Comments on specific work packages follow:
The misapplication of inappropriate waste legislation to house building on brownfield land has already resulted in severe regulatory obstacles to regeneration which are becoming increasingly onerous. There is no evidence that the opportunity to reverse this is being seized by the waste permit review. The main consequence of broad application of waste permits to brownfields is likely be the curtailment of the substantial social, environmental and economic knock on benefits of regeneration. These would far outweigh any benefits of the control of environmental risks by waste regulation that are in any case controlled by other legislation.
The key differences between brownfield remediation and waste recovery/disposal are still not addressed by this consultation. Brownfield remediation is an environmental good, typically paid for by the developer rather than the polluter, tackling an historic legacy, and is the foundation of rafts of social and economic policy. Application of inappropriate and restrictive waste management legislation to this activity will cause significant disbenefit, whereas benefits are unclear as brownfield remediation is already heavily regulated through planning, Part IIA, the forthcoming building regulations, and through the NHBC.
It is recognised that the European definition of waste covers contaminated soils and thus their treatment will need to be accounted for in waste legislation. However this will be best done through exclusions and exemptions for normal remediation and construction activity on brownfield sites. This could be coupled with the use of a Single Regeneration Permit where the benefits of this can be proven.
This is an issue of major concern to the HBF, the CC and the EIC, and despite some vocal lobbying there appears to be little response from government. Coupled with other developments in the sector such as the Landfill Directive, this could significantly impact government targets for the redevelopment of previously used land.
Until some real consultation upon the broad issues of how waste management legislation impacts brownfield redevelopment is conducted, there appears to be little point in commenting upon the detail of the work packages.
One additional point is the apparent inconsistency with the draft EA policy on building within 250m of a landfill site. Much of the current consultation indicates an expectation of issuing waste permits for certain remediation activities, whereas that policy appears to recommend that planning permission should not given for sites that hold WML.
____________________________________________________________