contaminated sites – implications of the ombudsman’s decision
DESCRIPTION
Contaminated Sites – implications of the Ombudsman’s decision. Overview. Statutory overview of contaminated sites management Nature of the contaminated sites registers Overview of the Ombudsman’s decision Implications. Statutory overview of contaminated sites management. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Contaminated Sites – Contaminated Sites – implications of the implications of the
Ombudsman’s decisionOmbudsman’s decision
OverviewOverview
Statutory overview of contaminated sites management
Nature of the contaminated sites registers
Overview of the Ombudsman’s decision
Implications
Statutory overview of Statutory overview of contaminated sites managementcontaminated sites management
What is a contaminated site?
What triggers clean up requirements?
Nature of contaminated sites Nature of contaminated sites registersregisters
Focus on historical use
Tend to be populated by potentiall contaminated sites
Very few verified sites
Overview of the issueOverview of the issue
Related to media attention prior to last general election
Issues Most sites unverified Information difficult to extract in global
sense Some information on LIMs Some decisions of Ombudsman on
similar issues favoured non-disclosure using LGOIMA tests
The arguments against releaseThe arguments against release
Impact on property values/commercial sensitivity
Privacy Commissioner concerned about individuals privacy
The Ombudsman’s viewThe Ombudsman’s view
Strong public interest in release
The fact that many sites are unverified is not problematic because the release of information can be accompanied by a contextual statement
The Ombudsman’s viewThe Ombudsman’s view
MfE view that such information ought to be provided in PIMs/LIMs (in response to specific information requests
Note : HBRC would release on site specific request and 2 DCs in region had information on LIMs/PIMs
The Ombudsman’s viewThe Ombudsman’s view
Privacy Commissioner view that public interest served by site specific release – Ombudsman says not enough
A wider public interest in all persons knowing about potentially contaminated sites in order to assess risks
The Ombudsman’s viewThe Ombudsman’s view
Fact that significant costs involved in verifying sites is no justification for delaying release until verification
Release may encourage land owners to investigate
Commercial sensitivity may be valid but outweighed by public interest
The Ombudsman’s viewThe Ombudsman’s view
“Identifying potentially contaminated sites is fundamental to protecting the public from any adverse effects caused by hazardous substances”
The Ombudsman’s viewThe Ombudsman’s view
Caveat is very important that information released with a contextual statement
Definition of “Unverified HAIL” Other categories used to describe
information about land information A copy of the HAIL Information about verification and
identification process Accuracy of Worley listings
MfE viewMfE view
“Delaying release of the report will significantly mitigate against, and in many cases avoid, property owners/occupiers being unnecessarily concerned. Additional time will provide an opportunity for regional councils to notify affected property owners and to do at least some of the basic quality assurance on the unverified lists…
MfE viewMfE view
“…The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council have indicated that a three month delay would enable them to at least partially mitigate the impact on affected property owners. A delay of this length is likely to provide all regional councils with a similar opportunity.”
What HBRC have doneWhat HBRC have done
Agreed to release information
Wrote to all property owners
Release happening this week
ImplicationsImplications
Registers may only list actual contaminated sites
Property owners may cease to cooperate on contamination investigation
Property values are affected Sale ability affected All councils affected National register to come?