Soilfix Director, Steve Jackson, recently contributed to an informative article in Ground Engineering Magazine entitled ‘Regulatory, planning and technical hurdles could detail brownfield development push‘.
A copy of this article can be found online here: Regulatory, planning and technical hurdles could derail brownfield development push | Ground Engineering
A full set of Steve’s answers to the questions posed by GE Magazine is set out below, providing a more detailed insight into some of the current challenges faced by the Brownfield Redevelopment Sector:
1. What barriers remain to developing brownfield and/or contaminated land sites in the UK?
We are continually experiencing frustrating delays to brownfield reclamation / remediation projects on our order book getting off the ground due to planning hurdles, environmental permitting, ecological / archaeological licences (to name a few) delaying works – often getting pushed into less favourable times of the year to carry out the remediation! We have experienced certain projects over the past couple of years where developers seem to have simply lost patience and moved onto ‘less challenging’ schemes (possibly on Greenfield), and derelict brownfield sites remain undeveloped.
Changes to the NPPF, for example the introduction of the ‘Grey Belt’ and a push for increasing planning resources will certainly help over time, however one strategic land company told me a large brownfield site currently situated in the Green belt will potentially take 4-5 years to actually become redeveloped as ‘Grey’. There has been productive dialogue between industry bodies and Government Agencies regarding regulatory barriers behind the scenes, and contractors have even been able to provide their own feedback going on behind the scenes has been held between brownfield industry bodies do question if these changes are sufficiently ‘Brownfield First’ and feel the Government can do more to remove the barriers.
2. Do emerging contaminants such as PFAS pose new risks and costs?
I feel the PFAS genie has only just started to escape the bottle in the UK, and the eventual costs of remediation are hard to predict but clearly provides a significant opportunity for the brownfield industry. I do however feel remediation needs to be proportionate and sustainable and ensure that higher risk sites are somehow prioritised and progressed towards environmental betterment – the high solubility / mobility of these contaminants, combined with extremely low water quality standards foreseeably presents a significant challenge to problem-holders (and the consultants and contractors they appoint) to successfully clean up the contamination without fear of future liabilities being realised down the line. All the time sites are locked in ‘assessment – negotiation – deliberation’, highly leachable PFAS compounds continue to adversely impact our water resources.
We have dealt with other emerging, persistent contaminants over the past few years, including phthalates and organochlorine pesticides / herbicides – there are also other challenges such as microplastics and persistent antibiotics in the environment that shouldn’t be overlooked while the focus is all on PFAS.
3. What policies and incentives are needed to drive the sustainable reuse of brownfield and/or contaminated land?
A shift in policy that fully backs the use of the DoWCoP for re-use of materials on all brownfield sites as ‘non waste’, even sites containing landfilled and/or stockpiled materials – there are multiple examples where such sites have been robustly remediated using DoWCoP over the years. Even if this means increasing declaration fees for more complex sites to provide funding back into the regulatory system, to better engage with industry and regulate this key voluntary Code of Practice.
Also, the Land Remediation Tax Relief Scheme could provide a greater ‘carrot’ to developers of brownfield land – the scheme replaced the landfill tax exemption regime but doesn’t seem to provide the same financial incentive to take on brownfield sites, perhaps as the benefit realised is very much ‘back loaded’ a corporate (rather than project specific) level.
4. Does the construction industry’s current skills shortage pose a risk to the widespread remediation and development of these sites?
As is the case with the wider construction industry, the pool of good resources in the brownfield contracting industry has certainly diminished over the past 10 years – Brexit and the pandemic have definitely contributed to this. College courses tied to apprenticeships are focused more on construction related skills – the practices of remediation and ground engineering are still more of an outlier, relying upon graduate recruitment or in-house training to supplement college courses that aren’t really fit for purpose.
5. How can local authorities be better supported in the regulation and management of brownfield and/or contaminated land sites?
Local authorities (as have the Environment Agency) have been chronically under-resourced for a long time now – there needs to be some other way of funding an increased pool of contaminated land professionals in the Public Sector if funds are not available from the Government, possibly with greater industry contribution via some form of levies.
6. Any other comments on the current risks and opportunities of brownfield development in the UK?
There are many opportunities for achieving a circular economy in brownfield development, such as the establishment of more ‘soil banks’ to store, handle and transfer this valuable resource to sites that really need it – if only our legislative / regulatory system can shift its view of surplus soils from being a ‘waste’ (which is based on an EU Directive after all) to a ‘resource’, this opportunity can be realised.
A key risk is the potential impacts of climate change on brownfield development which seems to have fallen down the agenda recently, but the challenges faced will only increase over time.
