Envirnmental search come back not satisfactory?

davidmcn

How long ago was the housing built? If recent enough then the planners are likely to have thought of contamination and required further surveys/clean-up (and should have the papers to prove it).

ktcoil

what I can remember as its at home but about 1987 it was built

ktcoil

about 1987 it was built

ERICS_MUM

I can't work out the specific risks from the information you've given us. I don't know if this is the standard level of detail for such a report but it wouldn't satisfy me - I would expect far more detail.

AdrianC

ERICS_MUM wrote: »

I can't work out the specific risks from the information you've given us. I don't know if this is the standard level of detail for such a report but it wouldn't satisfy me - I would expect far more detail.

That's the whole point, though - there may not BE further detail.

The property is on the site of old cotton mills - with an arsenic risk - and other "unspecified mills" - which may carry other risks. There is, it seems, no record of other detail, nor of the ground having had any kind of environmental clean-up or confirmation of that clean-up not being needed.

There's an unanswered question over the land. THAT's what the survey is doing - pointing that out.
The solicitor is saying he's not happy with that unanswered question, and pointing out the ways forward.
There are two potential corollaries - value loss, and health.
Potential value loss can be insured against.
Potential health implications cannot.
Everybody is simply doing the job they're being paid for.

So - given that that's the detail available, what does the OP - as the 2017 putative buyer - want to do?
Just go for it anyway? Insurance? Walk? They are the only three choices available - and the solicitor is strongly advising against the first. Since the solicitor is also acting for the lender, if there is one, it may only be two choices in practice.