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

In article ,
"Andrew Mawson" writes:
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.

If you buy the land, you become legally responsible
for decontaminating it, which you have to do.

Sainsbury's bought a large plot in Wheathamstead (Herts)
for a superstore, on which they didn't get planning permission.
Then it was discovered to be contaminated (was the development
site for Murphy's Chemicals in the 1950's and 1960's).
Sainsbury's then had to fork out 10 times the cost of the land
to have it decontaminated. Half of it now has a housing estate
on it (I bet they don't have too many problems with insects and
slugs in their vegetable patches;-), and the other half has got
to run as reed bed for 25 years (at least) to continue the
decontamination.

At the public exhibition, I heard one of the Sainsbury's staff
say the person who bought the land for Sainsbury's and believed
it to have been decontanimated without having it thoroughly
tested first was fired.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Hi Andrew(s),
Interesting to come across this update on the Wheathamsted Sainsburys
application - for which I too attended one of the store's public meeting
attempts to convince the villagers that they desperately needed a
superstore.

Murphy's was, I think, a pretty exceptionally contaminated site though: I
recall a meeting with an NRA officer, where he was of the opinion that just
a bucket of 'soil' from the site getting into the River Lea nearby, could
wipe out life for miles down stream!

Shame that the houses that were built instead, are so out of character with
the village centre not far away though.

As for the 'coal yard', it rather depends on what the coal yard was for: if
it was part of a gas works for example, there could be all manner of nasty
residues present - sulphuric acid - coal tar/phenolic compounds, and so on.
Even just a pile of 'coal' could be quite acid if there was any amount of
iron pyrite in for example, as this 'rusts' to give off sulphuric acid,
which rain would then wash down into the soil. One has to wonder, how your
'few hundredweight' got to be 'spread out over an acre or so': could be a
lot more than just coal 'levelled' into your plot by whoever prepared the
land following its previous use.

You should look at the whole history of the site in question and thus get
yourself a better idea of the kind of contamination that might be present.
You may also find that your planning authority turns out to be the best
people to advise on both this and any remediation that might be required as
they have I believe, been required to compile data on sites likely to be
contaminated, that fall within their area.

S


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Andrew Mawson" writes:
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.

If you buy the land, you become legally responsible
for decontaminating it, which you have to do.

Sainsbury's bought a large plot in Wheathamstead (Herts)
for a superstore, on which they didn't get planning permission.
Then it was discovered to be contaminated (was the development
site for Murphy's Chemicals in the 1950's and 1960's).
Sainsbury's then had to fork out 10 times the cost of the land
to have it decontaminated. Half of it now has a housing estate
on it (I bet they don't have too many problems with insects and
slugs in their vegetable patches;-), and the other half has got
to run as reed bed for 25 years (at least) to continue the
decontamination.

At the public exhibition, I heard one of the Sainsbury's staff
say the person who bought the land for Sainsbury's and believed
it to have been decontanimated without having it thoroughly
tested first was fired.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 2007-07-30 19:14:11 +0100, (Andrew
Gabriel) said:

In article ,
"Andrew Mawson" writes:
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.

If you buy the land, you become legally responsible
for decontaminating it, which you have to do.

Sainsbury's bought a large plot in Wheathamstead (Herts)
for a superstore, on which they didn't get planning permission.
Then it was discovered to be contaminated (was the development
site for Murphy's Chemicals in the 1950's and 1960's).
Sainsbury's then had to fork out 10 times the cost of the land
to have it decontaminated. Half of it now has a housing estate
on it (I bet they don't have too many problems with insects and
slugs in their vegetable patches;-), and the other half has got
to run as reed bed for 25 years (at least) to continue the
decontamination.

At the public exhibition, I heard one of the Sainsbury's staff
say the person who bought the land for Sainsbury's and believed
it to have been decontanimated without having it thoroughly
tested first was fired.

Supermarkets don't seem to have much luck in that area, what with
Tescos falling onto the Marylebone main line.

In message , spamlet
writes
Hi Andrew(s),
Interesting to come across this update on the Wheathamsted Sainsburys
application - for which I too attended one of the store's public meeting
attempts to convince the villagers that they desperately needed a
superstore.

Murphy's was, I think, a pretty exceptionally contaminated site though: I
recall a meeting with an NRA officer, where he was of the opinion that just
a bucket of 'soil' from the site getting into the River Lea nearby, could
wipe out life for miles down stream!

Umm... As the owner of the adjoining farmland I have an interest:-)

The NRA may well have known more than they said. When the local domestic
waste site (Blackbridge tip) was closed around 1965, Murphies created an
earth bunded liquid waste tip at the end of their site. I have no idea
what wastes were disposed there and this part of the site was not
decontaminated prior to being developed for housing. All surface water
is collected and fed via an enormous concrete duct to the reed beds and
thence to the river Lea.

Currently test bore holes are being installed around the old Berk
chemical works at Sandridge following the contamination of the Three
Valleys Water borehole at Hatfield.

With regard to Andrew's enquiry, I thought that the *polluter pays*
legislation fixed the responsibility with the current owner at the time
of the enactment and that you can't escape responsibility by selling?

regards
--
Tim Lamb

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
"Andrew Mawson" writes:
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.

If you buy the land, you become legally responsible
for decontaminating it, which you have to do.

Sainsbury's bought a large plot in Wheathamstead (Herts)
for a superstore, on which they didn't get planning permission.

Like the Royal ordnance site at Waltham Abbey which caused such a furore
when BAe bought it from the government for a quid

There were actually two sites, on one of them, the top metre of the
whole site had to be removed , taken up to Bedford, put through an
incinerator and returned

On the other site (where my factory was) they managed to get round this
somehow. It's now mainly a depot for another supermarket chain



--
geoff

Andrew Mawson wrote:
Has anyone on list had experience of contractors decontaminating land?

No personal experience, but as a matter of interest;

My mate worked in a small factory unit next to the old Vickers Armament
factory in Crayford, Kent, which was about to be demolished, having been
empty for years.

He became chatty with the site foreman. A few days after they started
demolition, they stopped work. It had suddenly occured to them that there
was no sound or movement in the dissused building, no rats, no birds etc.

Turned out to be knee deep in heavy metals or something of that ilk.
Whatever it was, they stopped work immediately & the decontaminating people
moved in. Took about 6 months apparently, cost the developer a fortune.
Now a business park c/w McDonalds.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On 2007-07-30 22:29:40 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andrew Mawson wrote:
Has anyone on list had experience of contractors decontaminating land?

No personal experience, but as a matter of interest;

My mate worked in a small factory unit next to the old Vickers Armament
factory in Crayford, Kent, which was about to be demolished, having been
empty for years.

He became chatty with the site foreman. A few days after they started
demolition, they stopped work. It had suddenly occured to them that there
was no sound or movement in the dissused building, no rats, no birds etc.

Turned out to be knee deep in heavy metals or something of that ilk.
Whatever it was, they stopped work immediately & the decontaminating people
moved in. Took about 6 months apparently, cost the developer a fortune.
Now a business park c/w McDonalds.

No change of use though ;-)

In article ,
Tim Lamb writes:
In message , spamlet
writes
Hi Andrew(s),
Interesting to come across this update on the Wheathamsted Sainsburys
application - for which I too attended one of the store's public meeting
attempts to convince the villagers that they desperately needed a
superstore.

The exhibition I went to was for the decontamination planning.
I was working in No 4 Place Farm at the time, literally a stone's
throw from what is now the reed bed. When they were scraping off
the top layer of the ground to be taken off to a very high
temperature incinerator, the stench was so bad I went home.

Murphy's was, I think, a pretty exceptionally contaminated site though: I

They said it was the most contaminated site in the South
(or South East, I forget).

Lots of villagers recalled a fire at the Murphys site in the
1960's IIRC. After it burned for a couple of days, apparently
they dug a big pit, bulldozed everything in, and bulldozed the
soil back in on top to put the fire out. The analysis of the
site revealed lindane and DDT, but also lots of other things
they couldn't identify. It was also the research labs, and
would have had developmental insecticides which never made
it into recognised products. St.Albans council who did the
analysis tried to find former workers who could recall which
bits of the site were used for what, but they couldn't find
any who were still alive.

recall a meeting with an NRA officer, where he was of the opinion that just
a bucket of 'soil' from the site getting into the River Lea nearby, could
wipe out life for miles down stream!

I don't think it was the Lea so much as a deep aquifer under
the site which concerned them, which was used for drinking
water some distance away. They were finding the chemicals
were leaching through into that. The reed bed works by drawing
water up from the aquifer which is contaminated, feeding it
to the reeds which clean it, and letting it percolate back
down again. This gradually cleans the mass of ground on top of
the aquifer, over something like 25 years. Halfway through
building the reed bed, the law changed making it illegal to
discharge such waste into an aquifer. This nearly scuppered
it--even though the discharge was cleaner than the aquifer
itself, it still counted as a polluted discharge. I guess they
managed to work around that as they did get it up and running.

With regard to Andrew's enquiry, I thought that the *polluter pays*
legislation fixed the responsibility with the current owner at the time
of the enactment and that you can't escape responsibility by selling?

unless the polluter no longer exists. Although there was still
a Murphys Chemicals office on the corner of the site, Sainsbury's
couldn't find any legal connection to the Murphys Chemicals which
owned the site before, and so Sainsbury's became legally
responsible.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 30 Jul 2007 22:24:45 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) mused:

In article ,
Tim Lamb writes:
In message , spamlet
writes
Hi Andrew(s),
Interesting to come across this update on the Wheathamsted Sainsburys
application - for which I too attended one of the store's public meeting
attempts to convince the villagers that they desperately needed a
superstore.

The exhibition I went to was for the decontamination planning.
I was working in No 4 Place Farm

Place Farm, the row of garden sheds with addresses?
--
Regards,
Stuart.

In article ,
Lurch writes:
On 30 Jul 2007 22:24:45 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) mused:

In article ,
Tim Lamb writes:
In message , spamlet
writes
Hi Andrew(s),
Interesting to come across this update on the Wheathamsted Sainsburys
application - for which I too attended one of the store's public meeting
attempts to convince the villagers that they desperately needed a
superstore.

The exhibition I went to was for the decontamination planning.
I was working in No 4 Place Farm

Place Farm, the row of garden sheds with addresses?

Sorry, you lost me. It's a 2-story office block.
It was the office block for Murphy's Chemicals.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

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

In Scotland the contaminator pays if he`s traceable.If not the current
owner is liable.The danger is that the contamination is not just the
bit of coal you are seeing but that it is deep into the ground.If it
is deep and depending upon what it is the council/epa may serve an
order on you to clean it up.This as you are no doubt aware can be big
bucks entailing complete excavation of the site,treatment of the
contaminated spoil and it`s disposal.You then still have to reinstate
the site.
It is normal up here for the buyers legal people to have a clause in
the sale that leaves any contamination problem with the seller and it
is also usual for the sellers legal people to refuse to accept that
condition.It is also acceptable to have a drilling for contamination
survey to be done as part of the offer for the property.My preferred
course of action when faced with the possibility that a possible
purchase is contaminated is to walk away as the councils and
enviromental agencies do not take into consideration what the cost
will be to the landowner,all they want is the site cleaned up
regardless off cost.There will always be another buy another day.
Mark.

On 31 Jul, 00:55, wrote:

In Scotland the contaminator pays if he`s traceable.If not the current
owner is liable.The danger is that the contamination is not just the
bit of coal you are seeing but that it is deep into the ground.If it
is deep and depending upon what it is the council/epa may serve an
order on you to clean it up.This as you are no doubt aware can be big
bucks entailing complete excavation of the site,treatment of the
contaminated spoil and it`s disposal.You then still have to reinstate
the site.
It is normal up here for the buyers legal people to have a clause in
the sale that leaves any contamination problem with the seller and it
is also usual for the sellers legal people to refuse to accept that
condition.It is also acceptable to have a drilling for contamination
survey to be done as part of the offer for the property.My preferred
course of action when faced with the possibility that a possible
purchase is contaminated is to walk away as the councils and
enviromental agencies do not take into consideration what the cost
will be to the landowner,all they want is the site cleaned up
regardless off cost.There will always be another buy another day.
Mark.

I meant to add that obviously if the survey shows it is only surface
contamination due to the coal then it is no major problem.Agree a
course of action with the contractor and put it to the council for
approval.
Bag all the coal and stack it on pallets ready for Palletline
collecting it for me.:-)

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

In Scotland the contaminator pays if he`s traceable.If not the
current
owner is liable.The danger is that the contamination is not just the
bit of coal you are seeing but that it is deep into the ground.If it
is deep and depending upon what it is the council/epa may serve an
order on you to clean it up.This as you are no doubt aware can be
big
bucks entailing complete excavation of the site,treatment of the
contaminated spoil and it`s disposal.You then still have to
reinstate
the site.
It is normal up here for the buyers legal people to have a clause in
the sale that leaves any contamination problem with the seller and
it
is also usual for the sellers legal people to refuse to accept that
condition.It is also acceptable to have a drilling for contamination
survey to be done as part of the offer for the property.My preferred
course of action when faced with the possibility that a possible
purchase is contaminated is to walk away as the councils and
enviromental agencies do not take into consideration what the cost
will be to the landowner,all they want is the site cleaned up
regardless off cost.There will always be another buy another day.
Mark.



Sound council from you there Mark, and probably what we will do !

AWEM

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
Andrew Mawson wrote:
Has anyone on list had experience of contractors decontaminating land?

No personal experience, but as a matter of interest;

My mate worked in a small factory unit next to the old Vickers Armament
factory in Crayford, Kent, which was about to be demolished, having been
empty for years.

He became chatty with the site foreman. A few days after they started
demolition, they stopped work. It had suddenly occured to them that there
was no sound or movement in the dissused building, no rats, no birds etc.

Turned out to be knee deep in heavy metals or something of that ilk.
Whatever it was, they stopped work immediately & the decontaminating
people moved in. Took about 6 months apparently, cost the developer a
fortune. Now a business park c/w McDonalds.

Yes, and they kept the Town Hall Clock too.........

On 30 Jul 2007 23:50:51 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) mused:

In article ,
Lurch writes:
On 30 Jul 2007 22:24:45 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) mused:

In article ,
Tim Lamb writes:
In message , spamlet
writes
Hi Andrew(s),
Interesting to come across this update on the Wheathamsted Sainsburys
application - for which I too attended one of the store's public meeting
attempts to convince the villagers that they desperately needed a
superstore.

The exhibition I went to was for the decontamination planning.
I was working in No 4 Place Farm

Place Farm, the row of garden sheds with addresses?

Sorry, you lost me.

That's fine.
--
Regards,
Stuart.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-07-30 19:14:11 +0100, (Andrew
Gabriel) said:

In article ,
"Andrew Mawson" writes:
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.

If you buy the land, you become legally responsible
for decontaminating it, which you have to do.

Sainsbury's bought a large plot in Wheathamstead (Herts)
for a superstore, on which they didn't get planning permission.
Then it was discovered to be contaminated (was the development
site for Murphy's Chemicals in the 1950's and 1960's).
Sainsbury's then had to fork out 10 times the cost of the land
to have it decontaminated. Half of it now has a housing estate
on it (I bet they don't have too many problems with insects and
slugs in their vegetable patches;-), and the other half has got
to run as reed bed for 25 years (at least) to continue the
decontamination.

At the public exhibition, I heard one of the Sainsbury's staff
say the person who bought the land for Sainsbury's and believed
it to have been decontanimated without having it thoroughly
tested first was fired.

Supermarkets don't seem to have much luck in that area, what with
Tescos falling onto the Marylebone main line.

You might be right about the luck aspect, but Morrison has been darned
cute at siting stores on brownfield sites.

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

In Scotland the contaminator pays if he`s traceable.If not the
current owner is liable.The danger is that the contamination is not
just the bit of coal you are seeing but that it is deep into the
ground.If it is deep and depending upon what it is the council/epa
may serve an order on you to clean it up.This as you are no doubt
aware can be big bucks entailing complete excavation of the
site,treatment of the contaminated spoil and it`s disposal.You then
still have to reinstate the site.
It is normal up here for the buyers legal people to have a clause in
the sale that leaves any contamination problem with the seller and it
is also usual for the sellers legal people to refuse to accept that
condition.It is also acceptable to have a drilling for contamination
survey to be done as part of the offer for the property.My preferred
course of action when faced with the possibility that a possible
purchase is contaminated is to walk away as the councils and
enviromental agencies do not take into consideration what the cost
will be to the landowner,all they want is the site cleaned up
regardless off cost.There will always be another buy another day.
Mark.



Sound council from you there Mark, and probably what we will do !

AWEM


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" 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?

AWEM

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" 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

AWEM

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!