Andrew Mawson wrote:
"clot" wrote in message
...
Andrew Mawson wrote:
"clot" wrote in message
...
Andrew Mawson wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
On 30 Jul, 14:45, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:
Has anyone on list had experience of contractors decontaminating
land? We are buying a parcel of land, part of which was once
used as a coal yard, so there is the odd bit of coal still lying
arround, not much but definately some. Planning permission has
been granted for a barn conversion, but is conditional on a
contamination survey, ( inc soil, soil gas, surface and ground
water sampling) the be carried out by 'a suitably qualified and
accredited consultant/contractor..' At the end of the day it is
only a few bits of coal, maybe a few hundredweight spread over
an acre or so, but somthing is going to have to be sacrified to
the local planning gods and some form of decontamination process
carried out.

AWEM

SNIP

It is sound counsel from Mark. I'm pleased to see that you are
intending to purchase rather than have! What were the former uses
before being a coal yard? If it was a gasworks (though only part if
the area concerned is an acre) or similar then there could be a
huge liability that you are buying into. At worst you could end up
with the land in question being registered as "contaminated" on a
Part IIA register and blighted as a liability rather than an asset
- I speak as one who deals with such issues daily as a living.

From what you write about the PP, there must be a reason whether
sound or not. The least you should do is have a Desk Top Study done
by an environmental consultant to determine former uses of the site
and adjacent areas to determine whether there is an issue and
whether you can technically dispute the requirements for an
intrusive survey.

A DTS would indicate whether such work is required and the extent
of the work. To purchase without that knowledge would seem to be a
significant risk to me!


Clot, Prior to being used as a coal yard it was a black current
field ! The coal yard usage was from about 1984 to 2003, with lorry
loads of solid fuel being stored in concreted bays, and a small
bagging plant used to put it in sacks for sale. They also sold
bottled gas. No liquid fuels were stored other than for use of the
lorries. The current owner admits that in heavy rain, black coal
carrying water would run down from the coal yard and into a pond on
the site which drains into local water courses. The local council
did a desk top survey for me and confirmed the usage dates. I am
rather at a loss as to what remedial action would be required -
perhaps if you deal with this sort of thing for a living you can
comment?

Interesting one; you mentioned in your o.p. that you wished to do a
barn conversion - of what? Do you intend to use existing footings?
Are these adequate for the job all will more groundwork be involved?

I am surprised that the planners did the search for you (or at least
shared the work that they had done to this extent) which is quite
helpful in that they seem to accept that the only potentially
contaminative use was as a coal yard. I'm having difficulty
appreciatng what they are concerned about. They didn't mutter "black
damp" did they? This is hardly relevant but they might just think so!

If we are only considering coal fines, etc. from the site's former
use then it is likely that there is only a thin surface skin. If
your barn conversion is to go beyond the existing footings of a
building, then you will in any case want to remove the topsoil which
would seem to be the likely "contaminated" depth, solving the
contamination issue.

You can use this material for landscaping onsite.If they raise the
question about what you intend to do with it, emphasise that you need
the material as topsoil (don't use the unmagic words waste or spoil).
Depending upon volumes and cost/ cost of delaying construction, be
prepared to offer to remove to landfill.

The Environment Agency is a Statutory Consultee to your application
and they might have responded to ensure that there is no chance of
surface water running into the watercourse with coal fines in it -
which justified since fines can ruin the ecology of the watercourse.
Ensure that you can address those concerns.

I think that you will need to prove that the "contamination" is skin
deep only. If they are sympathetic then they might accept photos of
trial pits you have dug around the site, though I wouldn't hold my
breath.

I suspect that the quickest will be to get a local environmental
consultant in to do this work and confirm in a report which they are
far more likely to accept!

If you are just using an existing footing, they might still be
twitchy (unjustifiably I suspect) about gases creeping into the
building via services and might be comforted by you explaining that
you will ensure gas-tight entry of the services.

I hope this helps. I have had limited to go on and have therefore
made some guesses!



Clot, thaks for that response. It looks increasingly that we will be
walking away from this one as the vendor has his head in the sand and
is not accepting this as an issue, and we are not prepared to pick up
the potentially huge remediation costs. The existing barn footings
would have been used, with a new internal slab and steel framework
actually taking the main structural forces bearing on the slab. As the
owner has already admitted that the run off coal fines have entered
the (large) pond and hence onwards to the local water courses for
several years, I suspect that that is where significant problems would
arise. But if the owner isn't prepared to foot the majority of the
clean up bill then he is going to remain the owner G

Seems a shame but I do appreciate your position. from what has been
described there is no contamination of the site that will pose a risk to
the environment, inhabitants or neighbours though there may be potential
to polute the watercourse if there is significant surface runoff going
through the pond into the watercourse. Even so, the layout could be
configured such that the pond acts as an interceptor!