Contaminated land - or not as the case may be

jra505

Hello,

We're in the process of buying our new home, and have just had the results of the environmental search. The property has received a "Further action required" status for the Contaminated Land category, because there is the potential that a previous use of that site contaminated it.

Initially I was very worried about this, but having done some research I am convinced that the search company are scaremongering somewhat.

The house is in a part of Hertfordshire where many brick makers popped up during the 19th Century. Looking through some old ordnance survey maps of the area, it seems as though our new home (built in 1971) is close to the site of an old brick works, and is actually on the site of an old quarry.

It seems as though the search company simply compare old maps with current maps, and looks for features that were present in the past but are no longer present now. Because the old map showed an excavation of some sort, but that excavation is no longer there, they have automatically designated the area as "infilled land (non water)" and by default this comes with the judgement that the site is potentially contaminated.

I am convinced that there is no contamination, and so from a health and safety perspective I have no concerns. Any pollution from brick making is likely to be airborne, rather than ground based, and will have long since gone. However I am more worried about being able to sell the property on in 20 or so years time if the searches again come back with a "potentially contaminated" result.

What is the best way to overturn the search companies finding? Should I even be bothered about doing it now? We don't want to delay the exchange of contracts, but at the same time don't want to find ourselves in a tricky situation when we come to sell in many years time.

The local councils contaminated land register has no entries, and they are the only people who can actually declare land to be contaminated, so should I really be worried about what a search company has determined, simply by comparing old maps with new?

I've heard you can get indemnity insurance for potentially contaminated land - perhaps that is the way to go? But who should take it out? The current owners or ourselves?

Any advice would be most welcome!

Thanks,

Ackoman

Marktheshark

With In filled land the greatest risk is under ground erosion and possibility of sink holes, more surprised they got planning in the first place.

davidmcn

jra505 wrote: »

Should I even be bothered about doing it now?

No, there's no point worrying about what might happen in 20 years time, since none of us knows what will normally be required by buyers then, and I doubt any insurance you buy now will be useful by then.

dc197

Write to the local authority. Ask about the planning permission. They may have stipulated x, y z. They may have said how the hole should be filled and even overseen the work.

My current house failed it's environmental seach because if historical contamination. I wrote and the council told me what they made the developer do as part of the planning permission to mitigate the issue.

jra505

dc197 wrote: »

Write to the local authority. Ask about the planning permission. They may have stipulated x, y z. They may have said how the hole should be filled and even overseen the work.

My current house failed it's environmental seach because if historical contamination. I wrote and the council told me what they made the developer do as part of the planning permission to mitigate the issue.

How long did that process take? I imagine that it might have taken quite a long time to get a response from the council?

lincroft1710

Marktheshark wrote: »

With In filled land the greatest risk is under ground erosion and possibility of sink holes, more surprised they got planning in the first place.

There was an estate in my home town built about 50 years ago over what was called the "Hills and Holes". Which they definitely were as I remember playing there as a child, running up the hills and down into the holes. All is flat now and the houses are still standing.

AdrianC

jra505 wrote: »

The house is in a part of Hertfordshire where many brick makers popped up during the 19th Century. Looking through some old ordnance survey maps of the area, it seems as though our new home (built in 1971) is close to the site of an old brick works, and is actually on the site of an old quarry.

It seems as though the search company simply compare old maps with current maps, and looks for features that were present in the past but are no longer present now. Because the old map showed an excavation of some sort, but that excavation is no longer there, they have automatically designated the area as "infilled land (non water)"

Umm, yes. That's because it IS land that's been infilled, and wasn't water beforehand (otherwise known as reclaimed land).

and by default this comes with the judgement that the site is potentially contaminated.

Do you know what that excavation was filled in with? ALL of the infill material? I don't. Your solicitor doesn't. The vendor doesn't. The search company don't.

I am convinced that there is no contamination, and so from a health and safety perspective I have no concerns.

Great.

Any pollution from brick making is likely to be airborne, rather than ground based, and will have long since gone.

Which isn't what's being said.

However I am more worried about being able to sell the property on in 20 or so years time if the searches again come back with a "potentially contaminated" result.

Well, unless everything's removed from that original big hole, and checked before being put back...

What is the best way to overturn the search companies finding?

You can't. It's accurate.

Should I even be bothered about doing it now?

Ah, now there we can't help you. We can tell you what WE would think, but we can't tell you what you ought to think.

The local councils contaminated land register has no entries, and they are the only people who can actually declare land to be contaminated

Great. So they haven't actually determined this land is contaminated. Which is why the search has come back as just "potentially" contaminated, right?

I've heard you can get indemnity insurance for potentially contaminated land - perhaps that is the way to go?

With what aim in mind? To pay legal expenses in case it turns out to be? But you said you were sure it wasn't.

But who should take it out? The current owners or ourselves?

If I was selling, and you suggested it, I'd be perfectly happy for you to pay for it...

Would I lose a sale over it? That depends on the buyer...

jra505

AdrianC wrote: »

Umm, yes. That's because it IS land that's been infilled, and wasn't water beforehand (otherwise known as reclaimed land).

Do you know what that excavation was filled in with? ALL of the infill material? I don't. Your solicitor doesn't. The vendor doesn't. The search company don't.

Great.

Which isn't what's being said.

Well, unless everything's removed from that original big hole, and checked before being put back...

You can't. It's accurate.

Ah, now there we can't help you. We can tell you what WE would think, but we can't tell you what you ought to think.


Great. So they haven't actually determined this land is contaminated. Which is why the search has come back as just "potentially" contaminated, right?

With what aim in mind? To pay legal expenses in case it turns out to be? But you said you were sure it wasn't.

If I was selling, and you suggested it, I'd be perfectly happy for you to pay for it...

Would I lose a sale over it? That depends on the buyer...

Well thanks a bunch for your righteous post.

AdrianC

jra505 wrote: »

Well thanks a bunch for your righteous post.

Now re-read it, and think about what I've actually typed.

jra505

AdrianC wrote: »

Now re-read it, and think about what I've actually typed.

Ah yes, you're quite right - I should never have described it as righteous.

dc197

It took about a week to get a fantastic letter and a map back from the council, if a 7-year memory has not faded. Cost around 40 quid.
I then sent this to Ground Sure or whoever it was that did the search, and it took another week for them to give the house a pass.

Naturally I kept this letter. Regarding selling, I preemptively sent it to my current solicitor in case my buyer's search revealed the same. I don't know whether it did but my sol would have forwarded itthe letter to them.