Environmental Law & Pollution Case Studies

This assignment requires a critical analysis of various environmental law and pollution-related case studies. Students must examine the legal frameworks governing contaminated land management, waste disposal, and industrial emissions. The analysis should delve into the challenges faced by local authorities, the effectiveness of current legislation, and potential areas for improvement. Case studies include Alney Island, Cambridge, and examples from academic publications focusing on the UK's environmental law landscape.

ENVIRONMENT LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
Contaminated land regime .........................................................................................................3
Significant harm to human health...............................................................................................4
Liability for remediation of contaminated land..........................................................................5
Cases that proves that contaminated land regime is effective for clean-up of
land 6
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................10
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................11

INTRODUCTION
Environment is a factor about which most of people and scientists are concerned. There
are several rules and regulations that are controlling pollution developed by many nations. In UK
there is a contaminated land regime which is used to clean up polluted land. This report discuss
various provisions of this law. Conclusion is derived on the basis of discussion of these
provisions and same is verified by analyzing different case studies. All these case studies show
different situations decision taken by nations in these conditions.
Contaminated land regime
Contaminated land regime is a very important law and it is used to make sure that land of
UK is contamination free from harmful pollutants. This law came in existence in 2000 when
environment protectionist said that harmful pollutants are deteriorating quality of soil because
firms are releasing their harmful pollutants in water and there is improper disposal of human
wastes and other chemicals used at homes. Due to pollution in ground water land, the land gets
contaminated. This pollution of the land in the UK has caused the government to prepare some
special rules and regulations to curb this problem that is threatening the survival of human and
other animals in UK. Under this law responsibility of local authorities are determined in terms of
steps that they need to take in order to control and reduce pollutants on the land ( Titirici. and
et.al., 2012). This law to prevent significant harm to human health and even other animals. In
research it has been found that if land is contaminated, then it affect human health and animals to
large extent. This not only affect human health but also affect plants and other small living
organism that are on and under that land. To protect land aesthetic deterioration and to keep
general public healthy this law was developed to bring in the UK into a safe state. Under this law
responsibilities of the owner of land were determined and many other relevant provisions were
added. In the same order it was to make sure that in every situation someone is liable for land
contamination.
The contaminated land regime has been effective in ensuring the clean-up of land. This
is achieved by ensuring that every company and anybody is liable for land contamination. In
order to understand effectiveness of this law it is necessary to understand the terms that are used
in this law. As per this law land is considered contaminated when it is polluted by heavy metals,
oils, tars, gases and radioactive substances (Chen. and Chai, 2010), chemicals and human wastes.

This means that if any firm throw its metal of radioactive products garbage on nearby land then
same will be said to be polluted and the company will be held liable by the law for contaminating
the land. Thus, it is clear from the definition that if harmful substances are thrown to the land it
will also be considered as being polluted. As per this law, if the owner of the land or person who
pollute the land will be liable and will be required to clean the land. Legal definition of
contaminated land is a land where substance put a negative impact of species, human beings,
plants and other living organism. The groundwater is said to be contaminated if it. In this law s is
not fit for any organism consumption. The sources from which land is contaminated are clearly
mentioned. The sources from which main pollutant spread on land are refineries, mines, landfills
and former factories (Earthscan.Harris, 2012). Under this law liable person is responsible for
remediation and he will be judged by the law notifying him/her from relevant authority.
Remediation service means that body of government is cleaning a land and liable person has to
pay the authority concerned with collecting of the garbage polluting of the land. It can be said
that in this law definition of contaminated land is clearly determined and liability of relevant
authorities as well as persons is fixed. Therefore this law is effective and ensuring cleaning of
land.
Significant harm to human health
As per this law it is responsibility of the local authority to identify possibility of human
harm by visiting a location. If relevant authority feel that due to contaminated substance human
harm is happening then it can take serious actions against liable person (Wang, Wang. and Ma,
2010). The significant harm to people is measured by identifying the number of sickness cases
in specific geographic area. Some of the diseases caused by the contamination of the land is
cholera, typhoid and others that are life threatening. The pollution of the also affect human
indirectly by causing death of plants that are main source of food for human. This makes human
survival hard. The pollution of the land also affect the small living organisms that enable
decomposition of organics products making manure that provide foods for the plants. In some
cases local authority can assess level of contamination of land and its impact solely or partially
on the basis of estimation of risk that may occur due to consistent use of land for throwing
garbage on land. To decide whether possibility of harm is high, relevant authority determine that
polluted items on land and whether they are severely affecting people. Under this law it is
responsibility of the local authority to assume that there is no any significant harm exists on

contaminated land (Carraro. and Leveque, 2013). The scientific instruments may show that there
is very only low contamination level and hence not putting any big impact on health of the
people and organisms all around. In this situation it is ass that in future such a assumed that
contamination level will increase and will have a negative affect people and the surrounding
environment and organisms. It is therefore the liability of that authority to take immediate action
on that site and to clean the land in order to remove contaminated pollutants and hence avoid any
future on human. Hence, it can be said that this law is effective it is ensuring clean-up of land
with immediate identification of contamination of land.
Liability for remediation of contaminated land
Liability for remediation of land occurs when it is identified that substances on land is
giving rise to the health defects on human residing in surrounding areas or has negative effect on
the organisms and plants living in the surrounding areas. This also include contaminated land
that is affecting controlled water bodies, ecological areas, crops and animals making the place
unsuitable for human to live on. As per this law liability of specific person must come in
existence when such kind of polluted land is identified because there is someone who is
contributing to pollution of the land. According to the contaminated land regime those who
cause or are knowingly involved in the contamination of land are the one who are held
accountable and should pay for clean-up of the land. Such a liable person fall in class A person.
It is possible that owner of a land or a person who is mainly responsible for polluting a land
cannot be found (Wang, Lai. and Shi, 2011). In such a situation person who is currently owner of
the land will receive a remediation letter or notice and they will be responsible for cleaning up a
land. In such a situation a person who is doing cleaning of land but is not main culprit for
contamination of land will be put in class B category. In this law care is taken there is no loop
hole that can be used by culprits in order to protect themselves from relevant authority action. As
per this law there may be a situation in which buyer of land can be put in class A category. This
thing will happen when an individual knows that land is contaminated and does not take any
action for cleaning of the land. The main assumption behind this provision of law is that buyer is
knowingly purchasing a land even he knows that land is already polluted. Hence, liability to
clean a land automatically comes in existence on part of buyer because he already know about
the contamination of land (Seiyama, 2013). If individual person know about the contamination of
land while purchasing same then he is liable to re-mediate a newly purchased land. If he does not

do so then local authority have powers to act against buyer of land. From this provision it can be
said that government prepare rules and regulations in such a way that someone can be made
responsible for clean-up of land when land is detected contaminated from pollutant.
According to this law, if a seller of land who is in class A category makes payment of
remediation amount to the buyer then it is liability of buyer of land to clean up a land (Masson
and et.al., 2011). This provision strongly apply when seller already provide information about
the contamination of land to the buyer at time of sale of land. If these conditions happens then
seller will become free from his liability to remove contaminated elements from land and buyer
at his place will be responsible to commence cleaning of land. This liability of buyer become
stronger when he already receive an amount from seller for cleaning of land.
According to contaminated land regime on receipt of letter of remediation it is liability of
class A and B person whoever is responsible to clean up a land. If liable person failed to do so
then local authority will undertake cleaning of contaminated land. Relevant authority have a right
to cover cost of land clean up from the liable person (McCormick, 2013). Means that in every
condition cleaning of land will happen and it will be done either by the relevant authority or
person who is responsible for contamination of land. This reflects that this law if very effective
in cleaning of land.
In order to make sure that land is cleaned in proper way some parameters are laid down
by this law. The main requirement of of this law is that land after cleaning does not poses risk to
health and environment once it is cleaned up by liable person or relevant local authority.
Cleaning of land does not mean that all pollutants are removed from cleaned land or site is
cleaned completely. The parameter determined in this law is that cleaned land must be suitable
for use for housing and gardening purpose. If there are pollutants in land but they does not have
significant impact on health of human beings and organisms then it will be assumed that land is
safe for use (Panwar, Kaushik. and Kothari, 2011). If anyone plans to develop flats with no
gardens and outlets then there will be low cost of clean-up. Similarly, if one plan to establish
company on the contaminated land then also there may be low expenditure of clean-up of land.
Hence, from above discussion it can be said that there are many provisions in this law that helps
in ensuring clean-up of land as soon as possible with detection of land as contaminated.

Shortcomings in ensuring effectiveness of cleanup of land. i.e Local authority as primary
regulators what are their shortcomings?
The terms “contaminant”, “pollutant” and “substance” as used in this steerage have the
equal that means – i.e. All of them mean a substance important to the part 2A regime which is in,
on or beneath the land and which has the talents to reason gigantic harm to a valuable
receptor, or to rationale massive pollution of controlled waters. This steering most likely makes
use of
the time period “contaminant” and associated terms equivalent to “contaminant linkage”.
Nonetheless
it recognises that some non-statutory technical guidance principal to land illness
uses replacement terms equivalent to “pollutant”, “substance” and associated terms in outcomes
to
mean the same thing.
• “unacceptable hazard” way a danger of any such nature that it would supply grounds for land to
be
regarded . All soils contain components that could be dangerous to human or environmental
receptors,
despite the fact that in the very tremendous majority of cases the extent of hazard is likely to be
very low. In
conducting risk evaluation under the part 2A regime, the regional authority will have to goal to
focal point
on land which could pose an unacceptable chance.
3.Three neighborhood authorities should have regard to good observe guidance on hazard
evaluation and so they
will have to make certain they undertake danger assessment in a way which gives you the results
wanted to
make robust decisions in step with section 2A and this steering.
Three.4 hazard assessments will have to be based on understanding which is: (a) scientifically-
centered;
(b) authoritative; (c) imperative to the comparison of dangers bobbing up from the presence of
contaminants in soil; and (d) suitable to notify regulatory.

Cases that proves that contaminated land regime is effective for clean-up of land
In order to prove that contaminated land regime is effective for cleaning up of land
various cases of UK are taken in to consideration. These cases are as follows. Contaminated land case study (Turbridge wells)- There is a Kent estate in UK where
hundreds of residents live and they receive a letter in which it was mentioned that their
houses may be building on the contaminated land. People have expectation that if this
assumption of regulatory authority proved correct then they will be liable to pay for
clean-up cost because they are owner of houses and fall in class B category (Fodha. and
Zaghdoud, 010). In this regard Turnbridge council that sent a letter to residents of three
streets in Paddock wood and warn residents that they may come in risk when substances
like asbestos will comes in existence. In statement council state that they are looking for
number of different chemicals like hydrocarbons and creosote etc at the place where
homes are currently build. Council clearly state that if pollutants are identified then
people will be responsible to pay cost of remediation to the relevant authority. If entire
case is studied then it can be it can be said that contaminated land regime is effective for
clean-up of land because there was no involvement of local people in ensurint the land is
not contaminated and also they were made responsible to pay charge of remediation.
People cannot deny from paying relevant charge to the regulatory authority. This reflects
that contaminated land regime is effective for clean-up of land. Contaminated land case study (Wokingham)- In Chervil of Wokingham local authority
the residents are informed that material disposed on the land may lead to contamination
of soil and health hazard may happen due to release of carbon dioxide and methane gas.
AMEC Earth limited which is an environment consultancy agency was employed to do
detailed investigation on the areas. Under this it is decided the monitoring wells be dug at
the site for 6-12 months. Soil samples was collected form drilled bore holes and pits that
were dug in gardens of houses (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2010). The local authority

founds a possibility of pollution and state finds a trace culprits and it can charge
remediation amount from the liable people. But if in any case it failed to do so then those
who are living in investigated area will be liable to pay remediation charge to the relevant
government authority. From this case it can be observed that in both conditions whether it
get success or failed in identification of culprits government will recover remediation
cost and will clean up polluted land. Hence, it can be said that contaminated land regime
is effective in clean-up of land. Comparison of cases of Turbridge wells and Wokingham- if we compare both cases
then it can be seen that in case of Turnbridge it was not possible to identify and catch
culprits. Priority of government is to protect environment and it make residents liable to
pay remediation cost (Kargbo, Wilhelm. and Campbell, 2010). But in case of
Wokingham there was possibility of catching culprits and due to this reason relevant
authority impose charge first of all on main culprits. But it keep open its next alternative
under which in case of failure to trace culprits residents will be liable to pay remediation
charge. Hence, it can be said that in both cases there is someone who is liable to pay
remediation amount to relevant authority for cleaning of the polluted land. It does not
matter whether the liable entity is actually responsible for polluting a land. This shows
that contaminated land regime is effective in ensuring clean-up of land. Case of Kingston road- There was Moole valley district council in UK in which there
were three resident homes that were suspected to be built on contaminated land. Council
warn buyers while they purchase those homes and inform them about the contamination
of land. Issue arises when one of owner of three houses try to sale its home. Solicitors
flagged up contamination issue council agency inspection team explore entire area find
out that there is contamination of soil. It was estimated that cost of remediation will be 2,
50,000 because it was expectation that benzopyrene which is highly toxic gas is a major
pollutant in the area (Boon, Calo. and Petts, 2012). Due to huge amount of remediation it
was difficult for the people to pay such a huge amount and due to this reason council
decided to approach government for grant. Relevant officer of government inform
residents that in case grant is not approved people have to contribute at least 7-8% value
of their homes to pay cost of remediation. This case shows that even amount of
remediation is very high people are made responsible to pay amount. Entire case shows

that even amount for remediation is high then also people are liable to make payment
even they does not make any contribution in contamination of land. Just assume that
government if providing grant for cleaning of land then also people have to pay huge
amount of money as remediation amount. This reflects that in every condition current
owners of home will be liable to pay remediation amount. From this finding it can be said
that contaminated land regime is very effective in cleaning up of land. Contaminated land case study (Alney land)- Department for environment, food and
rural affairs announced that it will fund remediation activity of 3,00,000 for six
residential properties that are located on land of Alney island. It was assumption that
there is a benzopyrene which is highly toxic gas is a major pollutant in the area. Further
study of the area show that area have a history of industrial use an in past years there was
firms related to bricks and iron foundry (Contaminated land case study- Alney land,
2016). Due to this reason there was very high pollutants in this area and this make land
contaminated. Council receive grant from the relevant authority which is also known as
DEFRA. Hence, on evaluation of this case it can be said that it was not possible for the
people to pay such a huge amount and due to this reason relevant authority decide to pay
all expenses related to cleaning of land at its own level. Thus, it can be concluded from
this case study that under this law government try to make sure that maximum times
public make payment of remediation cost even they are not responsible for land
contamination. But if in specific case relevant people are not able to make payment then
government comes forward and it bear entire cost of remediation. Means that in every
condition cleaning of land will occur at the contaminated place. This reflects that there
contaminated land regime is effective in ensuring clean-up of land. Contaminated land case study (Cambridge) - In Cambridge there were houses that were
built on the land which was nearby to the old gas factory. It was find out that all houses
that are located near gas factory are exposed to negative impact of pollutants. Many toxic
chemicals like cyanide, mercury, lead, arsenic and benzopyrene were founded n sample
that were collected from the land that was situated near gas factory. In initial stage
council told residents that they may be liable to pay remediation amount because an
individual who established these houses is no longer in business and it is not possible to
receive remediation money from him (Contaminated land case study- Alney land, 2016).

However, in later stage it was decided that DEFRA and local authority will combined
finance clean-up of the relevant site in order to remove pollutants from the land. On
analysis of this case it can be seen that at earlier stage people were made responsible for
making payment of remediation amount but due to its high value government decided
that it will make payment of remediation amount at its own level. From this case it is
cleared again that in every situation contaminated land will be cleaned even people are
not able to make huge payment then government will make payment of remediation
amount.
 Circular facilities (London) ltd VS Sevenaks district council- Mr Scott purchase a land
from Mr Kirchen goldsmith in 1978 after obtaining permission from the authority for
building residential properties. In 1979 he sold this property to the Circular facilities
which enter in to contract with him under partnership. In 1980 on behalf of Circular
facilities Mr Scott submited geotechnical report to Sevenaks district court. In report it
was identified that there are pollutants in the land and local authority construct ground
gas protected measures on land at its own cost to control pollutants. In 1991 this site was
re investigated and it was find out that still pollutants are emanated from land and in this
was case met the criteria from designation as contaminated land. Notice was served to the
council for taking protection so that pollutant can be controlled from emanation. Circular
facilities approach court on the basis of fact that person who had allow emanation of
pollutant must made responsible for carrying out cleaning of land. Circular facilities
claimed that it was not aware of presence of organic waste and it buy land by entirely
relying on Mr Scott. Court made liable to the Circular facilities because it submit
geotechnical report and it means it was aware of presence of pollutants on land. In this
case actually both Circular facilities and Mr Scott were responsible for emanation of
harmful elements from land. But as per law only one entity can be held responsible for
emanation of pollutants from land when there are multiple people that can be made liable
for emanation of pollutants. For this court conduct six exclusion tests and on same it was
identified that Circular is responsible for emanation of pollutants from land. This verdict
was given because due to perorations of Circular facilities. They had introduced the
pathway which include, cracks or fissures in the concrete slab floors of the houses and
service entry point by which the contaminant could reach the surrounding houses. Hence,

on this basis Circular facilities was made liable to pay remediation amount to local
authority.
If entire case analyzed then it can be said that there is shortcoming of relevant authorities. Both
entities contributed to emanation of pollutant from land. Then also curricular facilities was
forced to pay alone remediation amount. Instead to this both must be included while paying
remediation amount. Circular facility does not know about contamination of land and it purchase
same by relying on Mr Scott. Hence, it can be said that Mr Scott cheat Circular facility and he is
equally liable to pay remediation amount. Thus, it can be said that there are shortcomings of
relevant authority and they many times takes wrong decisions.
On the basis of analysis of all cases given above it can be said that if any land is
detected contaminated then it will surely cleaned up. Cost of clean-up of land can be borne by
the government or people depending on the situation. This means that contaminated land regime
is effective in land clean up and with immediate action contaminated land will be converted in to
pollutant free land.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is clear that on the discussion and analysis of case studies it has been find out
that contaminated land regime is very effective in ensuring clean-up of the land. It has been
found that waste disposal and management is the main hindrance in ensuring effective the clean-
up of the land. This can partly can involve the aspect of planning and by taking proper steps the
law should ensure clean-up of the land. Everybody or every company that throws waste on the
land is held responsible by the law and should ensure cleaning up of the land by pay the local
authority for the purpose of cleaning the land. Uncleaned land is said to be polluted and this have
negative effect to human health to human health and survival. To prevent this the law makes sure
that if any land is found out to be contaminated from harmful pollutants then someone will be
made responsible for carrying out clean-up process of land. Thus, from above cases on the basis
of analysis of different situation it is concluded that contaminated land regime is hundred percent
effective in ensuring clean-up of land. The paper is therefore successful in achieving the
objective.
REFERENCES

Books & journals
Boon, P.J., Calow, P. and Petts, G.E., 2012. River conservation and management. London:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Carraro, C. and Leveque, F., 2013. Voluntary approaches in environmental policy. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Chen, T.B. and Chai, L.T., 2010. Attitude towards the environment and green products:
consumers' perspective. Management science and engineering. 4(2). p.27.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S., 2010. Maximizing business returns to corporate social
responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication.International Journal of
Management Reviews. 12(1). pp.8-19.
Earthscan.Harris, P.M., 2012. The potato crop: the scientific basis for improvement. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Fodha, M. and Zaghdoud, O., 2010. Economic growth and pollutant emissions in Tunisia: an
empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy. 38(2). pp.1150-
1156.
Kargbo, D.M., Wilhelm, R.G. and Campbell, D.J., 2010. Natural gas plays in the Marcellus
shale: Challenges and potential opportunities. Environmental science & technology.
44(15). pp.5679-5684.
Masson, O. and et.al., 2011. Tracking of airborne radionuclides from the damaged Fukushima
Dai-ichi nuclear reactors by European networks. Environmental science &
technology. 45(18). pp.7670-7677.
McCormick, J., 2013. British politics and the environment. Routledge.
Panwar, N.L., Kaushik, S.C. and Kothari, S., 2011. Role of renewable energy sources in
environmental protection: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 15(3).
pp.1513-1524.
Seiyama, T., 2013. Chemical sensor technology. Elsevier.
Titirici, M.M. and et.al., 2012. Black perspectives for a green future: hydrothermal carbons for
environment protection and energy storage. Energy & Environmental Science. 5(5).
pp.6796-6822.
Wang, F., Lai, X. and Shi, N., 2011. A multi-objective optimization for green supply chain
network design. Decision Support Systems. 51(2). pp.262-269.

Wang, F.Y., Wang, H. and Ma, J.W., 2010. Adsorption of cadmium (II) ions from aqueous
solution by a new low-cost adsorbent—Bamboo charcoal.Journal of Hazardous
Materials. 177(1). pp.300-306.
S. Vaughan, "The contaminated land regime: still suitabale for? You must refer to this article
which critically stated the shortcomings of Local authority and other key areas
Eloise Scotford, "Legislative Comment. the new Waste Dorective-trying to do it all....an early
assessment" Environment Law Revision 2009, 11(2), 75-96
C.Abbot, "Waste management licensing: benefit or burden? [2000] 1002-1010
Andrew Farmer, Legislative Comment, Revising IPPS: incremental change rather than a radical
overhaul of EU industrial emissions policy. Environmental Law Revision. 2008, 10(4), 258-282.
Hazel Ann Nash, " Legislative Comment. The revised Directive on Waste: resolving legislative
tensions in waste management? J. Environment Law 2009, 21(1), 139-149.
Justine Thornton, "Challenges to planning permission for waste projects" J.P.L 2009, 12, 1553-
1559.
Online
Contaminated land case study- Alney land, 2016. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.cli.co.uk/Contaminated-Land-Case-Study/Alney-Island.aspx>. [Accessed
on 28th March 2016].
Contaminated land case study- Cambridge, 2016. [Online]. Available through: <
http://www.cli.co.uk/Contaminated-Land-Case-Study/Cambridge.aspx>. [Accessed on
28th March 2016].