communicating understanding of contaminated land … a… · communicating understanding of...

Final Report Project UKLQ13

Communicating understanding of contaminated land risks

May 2010

© SNIFFER 2010

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of SNIFFER.

The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of SNIFFER. Its members, servants or agents accept no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or use of the information, or reliance upon views contained herein.

Dissemination status Unrestricted

Project funders Scottish Environment Protection Agency Northern Ireland Environment Agency Environment Agency

Whilst this document is considered to represent the best available scientific information and expert opinion available at the stage of completion of the report, it does not necessarily represent the final or policy positions of the project funders.

Research contractor This document was produced by:

ArupScotland and Ray Kemp Consulting Ltd

Scotstoun House South Queensferry EDINBURGH EH30 9SE Scotland

SNIFFER’s project manager SNIFFER‟s project manager for this contract is:

Rebecca Glos Williams, SNIFFER

SNIFFER’s technical advisory group members for this project are:

Lucy Hine, Scottish Environment Protection Agency – Principal technical advisor

Liz Smyth, Northern Ireland Environment Agency Colin Ramsay, Health Protection Scotland Will McNish, North Ayrshire Council Philip Charles, CIRIA John Henstock, CL:AIRE Paul McCullough, Southern Group Environmental Health Committee SNIFFER First Floor, Greenside House 25 Greenside Place EDINBURGH EH1 3AA Scotland UK www.sniffer.org.uk

Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER), Scottish Charity No SC022375, Company No SC149513. Registered in Edinburgh. Registered Office: Edinburgh Quay, 133 Fountainbridge, Edinburgh, EH3 9AG.

SNIFFER UKLQ13 Communicating Understanding of Contaminated Land Risks May 2010

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. GUIDANCE OVERVIEW 3

1.1 What this Guidance Does 3

1.2 Target Audience 4

1.3 Background to this Guidance 4

1.4 Guidance Layout and Map 4

2. LAND CONTAMINATION AS A RISK COMMUNICATION ISSUE 6

2.1 How Land Contamination Issues Come to Light 6

2.2 Public Concerns over Land Contamination and its Risks 7

2.3 What Risk Communication Aims to Achieve 8

3. IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS 9

3.1 How to Identify Stakeholders 9

3.2 Understanding Stakeholder Concerns and Needs 11

4. BUILDING BLOCKS OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION 13

4.2 Build Trust 13

4.3 Understand Public Perceptions of Risk 14

4.4 Provide Sources of Reliable Information 15

4.5 Use Careful Timing 16

4.6 Improve Dialogue 16

4.7 Involve Affected Parties 17

4.8 Explain the Science as Simply as Possible 17

4.9 Allocate Budget and Resources 18

4.10 Work with the Media 18

4.11 Use Communications/Public Relations Team 21

5. HOW TO DESIGN A COMMUNICATION STRATEGY 22

5.1 Questions to Consider when Designing your Strategy 22

5.2 Assessing the Need for Communication – The Communication Net 22

5.3 What Increases or Decreases the Size of the Communication Net? 24

5.4 Communication Methods 26

5.5 Reviewing your Risk Communication Strategy 27

6. DELIVERING YOUR MESSAGE: TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION ON THE

DAY 32

6.1 The Message, Messenger and Means 32

6.2 Top Practical Tips for Communicating Risk Effectively „On the Day‟ 33


2

7. SUMMARY OF KEY CONSIDERATIONS 38

APPENDIX A: THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS 49

APPENDIX B: EXAMPLE QUESTIONS 53


3

1. GUIDANCE OVERVIEW In common with many other countries, the UK has a legacy of land contamination arising from industrial development and related operational practices. Much of this contamination has been present for long periods of time and it does not always pose problems. However, it will be of concern where an unacceptable risk – to human health or the environment – exists because of the presence of the contamination for the existing use of the land, or when there are plans to use the land for a new purpose (e.g. to re-develop a former industrial site for housing). There are also likely to be perceived concerns when the risks from any existing contamination have not been fully evaluated and communicated. There is legislation in place within the UK which is designed to ensure that unacceptable risks from land contamination are identified and appropriately managed. Contamination can take several forms (i.e. chemical, biological, radioactive, gaseous), and can be brought about in a number of different ways. This means that land contamination can occur in a variety of places from inner cities to rural locations. Contamination occurs as a result of human activity. However, hazardous substances or properties may also occur naturally due to the geology of the area or natural processes (e.g. biodegradation of organic matter producing methane and carbon dioxide). The presence of contamination has the potential to affect people‟s health, livelihoods and financial situation. Therefore, the risks from contamination need to be managed appropriately and communicated effectively. Those involved with the process of investigating, assessing and managing land contamination need to consider carefully how they will respond to public and stakeholder concerns, anxieties and expectations that may arise. Communicating about land contamination and proposed remediation solutions is exceedingly complex and often emotionally charged because of the potentially serious implications of the problem, the diverse range of people involved and competing priorities. Effective risk communication is not just about convincing people about what you perceive as the „real‟ risk following a technical risk assessment, but must be based on an understanding that people will have different perceptions of the risk as a result of their own situation and values.

1.1 What this Guidance Does This guidance document is designed to assist those communicating with the public and other stakeholders about land contamination risks. It includes:

Recommendations on how to develop an effective communication strategy, and

Practical advice on how to communicate effectively about land contamination.

This guidance will assist the user in developing a robust communication strategy that addresses the multitude of complexities inherent in communicating about land contamination and the associated risks. As the issues and risks posed by land contamination vary so widely, this guidance document does not present definitive risk communication solutions. Nor does it include advice on evaluating land contamination to determine the risks to health or the wider environment. References are provided at the end of this booklet that point to general sources of guidance on these topics.


4

1.2 Target Audience This guidance booklet is designed for anyone in the UK who wishes to communicate about land-contamination risks (existing and potential). This will include:

Local authority officers

Environment agencies‟ staff

Environmental consultants

Communications professionals

Health professionals

Developers

Landowners

Other stakeholder groups including residents, community leaders and councillors While recognising that differences in legislative arrangements apply in different parts of the UK, the risk communication guidance for land contamination provided here is applicable throughout the UK and farther afield. The references listed at the end of this booklet, and the legislative overview in Appendix A, are for the relevant statutory and non-statutory guidance as they currently exist.

1.3 Background to this Guidance This guidance enhances and updates the previous SNIFFER publication, “Communicating Understanding of Contaminated Land Risks,” which was published in 1999. Since then, the land contamination risk arena has evolved, with the:

Introduction of the Part IIA Contaminated Land regime in Scotland, England and Wales (in 2000) and development of the comparable legislation in Northern Ireland (known as Part 3, which is enacted but not yet in force);

Increased pressure to redevelop brownfield sites;

Increased use of planning conditions that require site investigations, risk assessments and remediation as part of the redevelopment process, as required by planning policy (e.g. Scottish Government, 2000 see also Appendix A); and

Increased public and stakeholder access to information through the Freedom of Information Act (2000) or the Environmental Information Regulations (2004), and widespread use of the internet.

Also since 1999, there has been increasing recognition of the important role that effective risk communication must play in addressing issues of public concern, especially regarding health risks. There has been a drive towards improved governance, transparency and accountability in both corporate and governmental decision making.

1.4 Guidance Layout and Map Throughout this guidance, coloured boxes are included to facilitate understanding of the material, highlight main points and provide quick reminders. This information is integral to the guidance and should not be relied upon in isolation from the text. The coloured boxes used and the information they provide are as follows:

The blue boxes provide brief pointers, reminders and suggestions that reinforce the message(s) in, or do not fit neatly into, the associated guidance text.

The green boxes communicate very important information – often in the form of bulleted lists – that has been distilled to facilitate knowledge

Text boxes throughout guidance:

= Reminders and tips

= Key points

= Case study


5

retention.

The yellow boxes, in Section 4, provide case studies which emphasise the importance of understanding and incorporating the ten building blocks described in Section 4 into the foundation of a communication strategy.

The body of this guidance is split into six sections – each building upon the principles and information provided in the preceding section(s). The goal at the end of the guidance is for the user to be able to develop a robust and effective communication strategy.

Contaminated Land Regime Inspection Strategies

This guidance may assist local authorities when updating the communications section of their Contaminated Land Regime Inspection Strategy. Also, the communications information documented in your Contaminated Land Regime Inspection Strategy can provide an excellent starting point for developing a site-specific risk communication strategy. Local authorities are encouraged to increase process transparency by providing your inspection strategy to stakeholders as this will help them understand the framework in which you are working.


6

See Appendix A for an

overview of the legislative

regimes and the planning

process under which land

contamination is investigated,

determined and remediated.

2. LAND CONTAMINATION AS A RISK COMMUNICATION ISSUE This section discusses how land contamination issues come to light, associated public concerns, and what effective risk communication hopes to achieve.

2.1 How Land Contamination Issues Come to Light Land contamination issues can become public knowledge in a variety of ways, but principally through the results of assessments and investigations carried out either by land owners, local authorities, or developers. Other ways that the presence of contamination may become known is through unexpected exposure in excavations; visual or olfactory evidence at the surface, in watercourses or abstraction boreholes; spillages or leaks of hazardous substances (accidental or as the result of fires); and through research of publicly-available sources of information.

Local Authority investigations. Local authorities have a statutory duty to assess the occurrence and significance of land contamination in their areas under the Contaminated Land regime – known as Part IIA in Scotland, England and Wales and Part 3 in Northern Ireland (the implementation of which was pending as of March 2010). The results of these assessments, and of any remediation that is required, are public domain information.

Planning applications for new development. Most land contamination investigation and remediation are undertaken outside the Contaminated Land regime. They are undertaken by developers as a requirement of their planning applications and of conditions imposed by the Local Authority (or Planning Service in Northern Ireland) on planning permissions. A developer wishing to remediate a brownfield site for development purposes is currently under no obligation to communicate information on existing site conditions and contamination risks with the wider community. For smaller developments, which fall outside the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations, this information and the preferred remediation strategy are shared only between the developer, the Local Authority/Planning Service and, sometimes, the relevant environment agency. However, documents submitted to the Local Authority/Planning Service in connection with the planning process can be made public and environmental statements submitted for larger projects under the EIA regulations are public documents. While some developers may be pro-active in informing potential buyers/occupiers that land has been remediated, there is no legal obligation to do so. The property conveyance process, together with the use of planning conditions, will normally reveal a site‟s contaminative history to prospective purchasers, but as in all aspects of property purchasing, the rule of caveat emptor or „buyer beware‟ applies.

Corporate property portfolio management. Industrial landowners frequently undertake routine environmental investigations of their property portfolio in order to manage their sites and limit potential liabilities. This may generate information about contamination and remediation activity that is regulated neither under the contaminated land regime, nor under the planning regime (unless there is a change of use). This information would not become publicly available unless released by the company.

Formal request to government for information. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) (2000) and the Environmental Information Regulations


7

Contamination issues can act as a „lightning conductor‟ within

the planning process, and dissatisfied neighbours may mount objections to proposed brownfield redevelopments.

(EIR) (2004), the public has a right to access and obtain information on any environmental issue, including land contamination, held by government and even some private bodies. However, using this legislation can be complicated as requests must be suitably specific and the processes involved can be complex.

Local knowledge. People who have been resident in an area over a period of time can often remember facilities that were once located and/or activities that used to occur on a particular plot of land. They can help alert the community to the (potential) presence of contamination.

Discovery of contamination. Contamination can come to light during excavations for other features such as new roads or utilities. Also, the appearance of contamination in surface water or at the ground surface can alert people to its presence.

Mapping and environmental data. It is possible to obtain information on potential site-specific contamination issues. Historic maps (e.g. old Ordnance Survey, town plans or insurance plans) can be used to identify previous site uses which may have had the potential to cause contamination. Environmental information is also available, such as records of former landfill sites or pollution incidents. This information is available from various commercial companies, but can also be obtained from local reference libraries, environment agencies and local authorities.

2.2 Public Concerns over Land Contamination and its Risks The response of people to land contamination issues is difficult to predict, as it can be driven by many different concerns or fears, including:

Health of self and family: Health fears are often of the utmost priority - particularly in relation to children (and sometimes pets as well).

Property values: The importance of house values to home owners cannot be over-estimated. They encapsulate the fruits of labours past as well as hopes for the future, pensions and, ultimately, a legacy to loved ones. As a result, anything which threatens housing as a store of monetary value can have a very powerful effect on people‟s emotions and behaviours. Contamination issues may lead to fears of blight and difficulties in selling homes due to the perceptions in the wider community of problems on the site.

Amenity: Many fear or resent that remediation works to address contamination may lead to a loss of amenity (e.g. loss of a place for children to play, to walk, exercise pets, jog or ride a bike or loss of pretty views).

Liability: The possibility of householders being found directly liable (under the Contaminated Land regime only) for remediation costs can be extremely important and potentially distressing. Additionally, home insurance policies may specifically exclude claims related to land contamination.

Level of confidence in government’s ability to protect: In the past, some shortfall in the normal checks and balances may have allowed development to proceed on a site which would not normally be considered suitable. This may undermine the public‟s confidence in the planning and development process for ensuring safe re-use of contaminated sites, leading to wariness on the public‟s part. This dissatisfaction with local and national government often crosses political boundaries.

Damage to the environment: Some people have passionate feelings for the „environment.‟ Political motives and/or a sense of moral obligation to protect the


8

Exposure to contamination is involuntary and often

unseen. The lack of control people may feel and a

lack of knowledge about the issues may amplify

concerns and fears.

An effective risk-communication strategy will

provide stakeholders with sufficient understanding

to have constructive input in developing a solution

and thereby allow them to regain an element of

control over the situation.

environment can be important for some who may try to steer the remediation process toward creating a „greenfield‟ environment, rather than making it „suitable for use‟ or within acceptable limits‟. The required standard of remediation in the UK is not restoration of pristine conditions but ensuring that the land is suitable for the current or proposed use.

2.3 What Risk Communication Aims to Achieve The goal of risk communication is to help people understand the contamination issues and the importance and benefits of taking action. Effective risk communication is necessary where there may be concerns about land contamination, or the risk posed by contamination is poorly understood. Risk communication is about more than just informing and educating. It is about (and will in turn benefit from) establishing your organisation as a reliable source of information; one that acts fairly and treats people with respect and dignity. This means working in partnership with the potentially and actually affected parties to find joint solutions, and being transparent and considerate with the timing and frequency of communications and dialogue. These activities are the hallmark of effective risk communication. Risk communication is not just about coming to a technical conclusion on risk then ‘announcing’ this to affected parties, but must be a two-way process achieving mutual understanding.

The benefits of effective risk communication

Communicating effectively about land contamination risks will:

Inform your assessment of risk;

Reduce unnecessary anxiety for potentially and actually affected parties;

Reduce misunderstandings;

Reduce the potential for unnecessary delays;

Establish a good working relationship with key stakeholders and members of the public and,

hopefully, a degree of mutual trust – which is, in turn, beneficial for effective communication. This is better than the „crisis management‟ approach of fighting the fires of outraged communities who feel they have not been consulted with fairly or listened to.


9

Advice is provided on the available and appropriate communication approaches

for key audiences or stakeholders in Section 5.3 and in Tables 5.1 to 5.3.

3. IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS Ensuring you are communicating with the correct people is a crucial aspect to get right in any land contamination communication issue. It affects how complex your strategy needs to be and the methods you will use. The different types of people involved will determine the different perceptions and levels of concern associated with the issue you are considering. Guidance on identifying stakeholders is therefore provided early here before leading on to the later sections. Collectively, the group of people with whom you will need to communicate can be regarded as the „stakeholders‟ who have, or who consider themselves to have, an interest in the land contamination in question. Stakeholders are those individuals or organisations who are likely to experience an impact, either directly or indirectly, as a result of the land contamination issue. Stakeholders are also those people who are able to influence whether or not a project will proceed. For your communication strategy to be as effective as possible, you should ensure that all appropriate stakeholders are included.

3.1 How to Identify Stakeholders

To identify your stakeholders, start by looking at the widest possible range of interested parties. These can include those with professional or technical expertise, those who are financially involved or impacted, and those with local and community knowledge or responsibility. Due to the nature of the contamination present on some sites, the affected parties may

not be restricted to those living on or in the immediate vicinity of the affected site. Contamination can travel long distances from the site of origin as sediment in rivers, airborne pollution or contaminated groundwater (that can be abstracted elsewhere).

Key groups of stakeholders include:

People directly affected

Local community representatives

Decision makers

Relevant interest groups Types of stakeholders may include:

Occupier and past occupiers of an affected site or

area (e.g. residents or workers)

Landowners

Entity responsible for causing (intentionally or

inadvertently) or knowingly permitting the

contamination

Local businesses, schools, nursing homes, etc.

Local leaders, councillors and local MPs

Local authority and regulatory agency contacts,

including contaminated land officers, planning

officers and community relations staff

Decision makers and financial staff within the local

authority or government

Other regulatory agencies

Site investigation personnel including

environmental, health and safety consultants

Developers

Community groups and business associations

Activist groups

Conservation bodies

Legal and insurance advisors

Local health trust(s) or equivalent, and the local

public health agency

Local media


10

Participatory procedures can

generate more complete and better

quality information. Residents often

know more about the history of their

neighbourhood and community than

official records can provide and,

therefore, may have an important

role to play in helping to establish

how the contamination occurred and

the extent of former activities on the

affected site.

Also, persons living some distance away from contaminated land may be stakeholders due to their use of the land for work or recreation. Children attending schools in the area of the contaminated land may live outside the immediate area. Non-residents may use an affected local park or conservation area. Therefore, it is vitally important that the communications strategy ensures all relevant (or potentially relevant) stakeholders are identified. In order for a communication strategy to remain focused and balanced, it may be necessary to build communication links with representatives from the stakeholder groups. It is important to remain open and inclusive. Some individuals or groups will volunteer their time or information, and will be easy to identify. Communication with these groups can be undertaken according to the needs presented and resources available. However, some stakeholders may not put themselves forward and may be difficult to identify. The denial of risk implies that some individuals are unlikely to be concerned or have the time to consider land contamination issues. Therefore, in some instances, the very individuals that are most at risk from the hazards posed by an incidence of land contamination may in fact be the people with whom it is hardest to establish any formal communication. Within the communication strategy, careful consideration needs to be given to the means of communication with such groups or individuals. It may also be important to ensure that the decision makers within your organisation have an understanding of contaminated land risks. These people may be responsible for securing funding for investigation or remedial works, or making decisions on broad local community issues relating to land contamination.


11

Key questions to ask yourself when identifying stakeholders:

Who is the current land owner?

Who was the owner/operator of the site when the activities which caused the contamination took place?

Who may be affected by contamination from the site in question?

Who are the local councillors?

Who lives in a home from which work on site might be visible (this includes gardens)?

Who works in the vicinity?

Are any schools, colleges, or nursery facilities in the vicinity?

Are there any religious or sacred buildings in the vicinity?

Are there any healthcare facilities (e.g. GP surgeries, hospitals) in the vicinity?

Are there any care facilities or residential facilities for sensitive groups located in the area?

Are there any landmarks or local cultural features nearby from which any proposed works would be visible?

Are there existing community groups in the area who should be involved in the consultation process?

Have there been any instances of public concern about other local issues recently? If so, then local action groups or local media may be existing stakeholders.

Are there nature or leisure parks and playgrounds nearby? Who uses them?

Are the local properties lived in by owner occupiers or tenants? Remote landlords may need to be considered.

Who are the appropriate regulatory bodies for both human health and environmental considerations?

Are there any sensitive landmarks, cultural features, designated sites or protected species in the area?

Typical areas of public concern

Health of self and family

Property values

Amenity

Liability

Level of confidence in

government‟s ability to protect

Damage to the environment The types or categories of concerns commonly held by the public are discussed in Section 2.2.

3.2 Understanding Stakeholder Concerns and Needs It is important to identify and understand stakeholder concerns and needs before and during communication, and to address them throughout the process. The better you understand the stakeholders‟ values and motivations, the better you will be able to address their concerns, gain their trust and find a way forward. In addition to common and easily anticipated concerns about health and property, some individuals or groups may have less obvious concerns and needs that centre on the timing and means of communication and the timing of disruptive investigation and remediation activities. These timing-related concerns and needs can be grouped into two categories and require special consideration:

Throughout the project lifecycle, and

During any disruptive investigation and remediation activities.


12

Throughout the project lifecycle: Some stakeholders may need more time to process information if it is very novel to them, or if they find it difficult accessing or understanding it (e.g. language barrier, vision, hearing, physical or mental impairment). Special communications may need to be created for these individuals, or interpreters used during meetings. Take these special considerations into account when planning communication activities and make every reasonable effort to address them. During any disruptive investigation and remediation activities: Some individuals will be more affected by investigation and remediation activities than others. For instance, people who are housebound may experience more disruption and inconvenience from any planned investigation or remediation works than those who are at work all day. The same holds true for schools (e.g. noise, access and loss of play space), care facilities and other such places. Consider what can be done to mitigate this increased disruption, nuisance and inconvenience; and work with the affected parties to find workable solutions. Some stakeholders may have a greater sentimental attachment to their home or garden than others. For example, if it was their childhood home, or they have a pet buried or have planted a commemorative tree or shrub in their garden, then they may be reluctant to allow access for investigation or remediation works. Understanding and addressing all these factors requires active listening, responsiveness, problem solving, and clear, two-way communication on an ongoing basis.

Contacting stakeholders: Key factors to consider

The following list of factors should be considered when deciding how best to make contact with a local community and your key stakeholders:

Age: Are pensioners or young families involved?

Mobility: Can people get to public meetings?

Do people have access to email and the internet?

Do people have access to a phone?

Are there likely to be any language barriers?

Be aware of possible new residents moving in part way through the investigation and remediation processes.

Gender: consider whether you need to take extra care when approaching single women. Is it more appropriate to use a female communications officer?

Be aware of the health and safety of your communications staff (e.g. undertake „door knocks‟ (i.e. house visits) in pairs).

Consider working hours of residents – especially if you need to visit at night or weekends.

Consider when it is best to hold meetings: during the week or at the weekend, during the day or evening? Take note of bank holidays and religious festivals relevant to the area.

Give people time to respond, but do not allow so much time to pass that momentum is lost and information is forgotten.


13

To be an effective risk communicator,

you will need to:

Build a working relationship as a

trustworthy party with stakeholders.

Allow people to get involved and have

influence over the project.

Ensure transparency.

Highlight the benefits but recognise

costs/disadvantages associated with

risk-reduction steps (from simple

means of limiting exposure all the way

to intrusive soil remediation activities).

4. BUILDING BLOCKS OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION This section presents information on the ten key building blocks of effective communication. These factors should be taken into consideration in any situation and used as the basis for developing and carrying forward a site-specific communication strategy.

4.1 The Ten Building Blocks of Effective Communication

1. Build trust

2. Understand public perceptions of risk

3. Provide sources of reliable information

4. Use careful timing

5. Improve dialogue

6. Involve affected parties

7. Explain the science as simply as possible

8. Allocate budget and resources

9. Work with the media

10. Use communications/public relations team

Each of these concepts is discussed in detail below.

4.2 Build Trust Trust can affect public responses to information about land contamination risks. Demonstrating the qualities of openness, transparency, responsiveness and willingness to consult can help build trust.

Information must be communicated whether or not people trust you or your organisation. Often there is a distinct lack of trust and the communicating person or organisation starts the communication process at a disadvantage. This lack of trust (and the often

Key pointers for building trust

Build your relationships with key stakeholders at the very beginning of the risk communication process.

Be aware of any historical or underlying issues (including cultural and neighbourhood disagreements).

Be honest. If you do not know the answer to a question, say so; and then find and provide the answer quickly.

Be helpful. If you cannot help, find someone else who can.

Be empathetic. Listen to and acknowledge people‟s concerns.

Set achievable goals and deadlines, and then meet them. Honour your commitments and manage expectations.

Be responsive. Inform people quickly if anything changes.

REMEMBER: Trust is slow to gain and quick to lose. Work hard to maintain it.


14

Case Study: Building Trust

A local authority had lost public trust when dealing with the development of a contaminated site, so they decided to appoint an independent third-party consultant in order to re-build trust in the process. However, they failed to consult with the stakeholders first, which resulted in distrust of the third-party consultant, in addition to the local authority.

It is crucial to keep in mind the role that perception plays in people‟s responses.

subsequent lack of co-operation) can hamper the investigation/designation/remediation process and undermine the risk communication process. Where trust in the land-contamination assessment process has been lost, consider employing an independent third party to review any reports generated about the site. It is important that the mechanism by which the third-party consultant is employed (and funded) is considered carefully.

4.3 Understand Public Perceptions of Risk It may not be possible to predict accurately how people will respond to an issue every time. However, by improving your understanding of what motivates public reactions, you will be better placed to anticipate the issues which are likely to arise. If you take time to develop better relationships with members of a local community or their representatives, you will be better able to understand and anticipate their views and reactions to new information and proposals as they come forward. Perceptions are the filter through which people view everything and they are often emotionally driven. Their perceptions are their reality, and this is the reality in which the communicating person or organisation must operate. Factual information alone will not satisfy. It is essential to understand the key influences that shape people‟s perceptions of land contamination. You need to work to understand their views in much the same way as you are asking them to work to understand your „technical‟ view of the risks.

People tolerate a variety of risks in their everyday lives; but most people want to be able to have some level of control over these risks. Land contamination is perceived to be riskier than activities which pose a clear risk to health and safety (e.g. smoking cigarettes, driving). This is because (1) exposure to land contamination is usually involuntary; (2) there is generally less familiarity with it and the associated risks; and (3) there is more uncertainty over what is „safe‟. For these reasons, people may want to be able to exercise as much control as possible over proposed remediation measures.

Case Study: Risk Perceptions

A local authority identified that a housing estate had been built over a landfill site. The landfill contained a variety of wastes, including asbestos. In addition to the contamination from the waste placed within the landfill, biodegradation of the waste was generating methane gas. Risk assessments identified that the potential risk posed by the methane gas was greater than the risk posed by the contaminated waste. This was because the waste was encapsulated within the ground, whereas the methane gas was potentially entering people‟s homes and posing an explosion risk. When the information on ground conditions was conveyed to the local community, they were more concerned about the presence of asbestos (rather than methane). This was because the local residents were more familiar with the consequences of exposure to asbestos, as they had seen friends and relatives become ill from exposure to asbestos in local industries. They, therefore, perceived the risk from asbestos to be greater than that from methane, even though the reverse was true.


15

However be careful not to make comparisons between types of risks, for the very same reasons – people will react to and accept different types of risks in different ways.

4.4 Provide Sources of Reliable Information People‟s perceptions of the risks from land contamination are formed by what they read, see and experience. Access to information and a wide range of alternative views is greater than ever before. Unfortunately, a considerable amount of what is written in the media and on the internet is inaccurate. Alas, it is human nature to place greater weight on information and views that reinforce one‟s own views (or perceptions).

Tips for providing information

Provide extremely clear and simple explanations of actual or potential contamination in the

environment and what is being done (or will be done) about it. Using pictures and diagrams can

be very effective.

Refer people to independent, official sources of information (e.g. their local health trust (or

equivalent) or public health agency), but ensure that those sources are made aware beforehand

and are prepared to respond.

Identify any local expertise that may be able to aid communication or dialogue. Many communities

have resident experts (scientists, lawyers and other professionals) who may take an active

interest. People are usually more likely to believe a person they know over someone they do not.

Direct people to reliable sources of printed information. It is helpful to explain what credible

sources of information are (e.g. peer-reviewed articles, professional and scientific papers,

independent academic advice and established governmental and industrial guidance). If possible,

you could even provide a detailed list of credible sources and where they are available.

Be aware of potential public perceptions!!

People may perceive (whether right or wrong!) that…

Those responsible for site investigation and remediation are untrustworthy.

Developers of brownfield sites are only interested in generating a return on their investment and

are unresponsive to community concerns about possible land contamination. Studies funded by

developers are therefore less likely to be trusted by concerned groups.

Contamination has delayed health effects (creating a possible „time bomb‟ hanging over them) and

could possibly cause genetic mutations that will be passed on to future generations.

The science of risk deals with uncertainties. The media will likely portray this as scientists refuting

or disagreeing with each other on data/results.

There is a lack of control over exposure (and sometimes the lack of fore-knowledge of the

presence of land contamination).

There are few clear benefits from any investigation or remedial works.

The value of their homes – usually a person‟s number one (and often their only) asset – will be

ruined.

Even the most miniscule amount of residual contamination is dangerous.

Note that very few of the above perceptions relate to the science of health risk assessment. While improved understanding of the science is important, risk analyses alone are not sufficient to address people’s concerns.


16

Remember that the most effective communication is a two-way process that

respects the views of all participants.

4.5 Use Careful Timing Carefully and appropriately timing your communication is a key part of effective risk communication. Often, in the early stages of a redevelopment project or when a site has been identified as potentially contaminated, little information is available or is provided to the public. A site investigation is typically required to confirm whether contamination is present, and a risk assessment then needs to be undertaken to determine whether the levels of contamination might cause harm. The timescale for each of these steps can be weeks or months. Regardless, it is vital that the communication process is started as soon as the potential for contamination has been identified, and continues throughout the lifespan of these activities. Stakeholders should be made aware of these timescales (and their associated, scheduled communication points) so they know when to expect further information and be notified of any delays. The communication process should continue through completion of any remediation work.

4.6 Improve Dialogue By giving stakeholders the opportunity to express their opinions and ensure that their voices are being heard and considered, you can avoid the development of any tension between stakeholders and the project co-ordinator. If stakeholders feel that their opinions are not being taken into consideration and that they are not being treated as a partner in the process, then they are unlikely to accept risk assessments, safety advice or any other environmental information you give them. By improving dialogue you may gain much more information about the site, which will help the overall process. Increasing and improving dialogue can also help minimise misunderstandings.

Case Study: Improving Dialogue

A former defence site was proposed for redevelopment. The activities conducted on the site in the past were shrouded in secrecy. This led to mistrust amongst the local community. It was recognised that communication with the local community would be vital to successfully redevelop the site. Several groups of stakeholders were identified, including local residents, environmental groups and businesses. Representatives from each stakeholder group were invited to join an advisory panel to discuss issues of concern. Workshops were held with key stakeholder groups to discuss the proposals for remediation and redevelopment, and obtain feedback. When the remediation works were finally undertaken, the process was carried out with the support of the local community.

Case Study: Communication Timing

It came to the attention of a local authority that the land on which a housing estate had been constructed may be contaminated. The authority produced a letter which was to be hand-delivered to all local residents, schools and businesses stating where the affected site was and the steps that were being taken to deal with the problem. A media release was also planned for later the same day. Unfortunately, the media release was mistimed, resulting in local residents receiving their letters after they had seen the site featured on the local television news. This, understandably, caused considerable anger amongst residents who felt that they had been the last to be informed. This resulted in a delay to the whole process and led to mistrust of the local authority.


17

It is important not to underestimate or

overestimate the capabilities and understanding of the stakeholders in the community.

Be honest with stakeholders.

Adopting a „softly, softly‟ approach (i.e. breaking bad news gradually) rarely works, and only delays people‟s process of acceptance of the facts.

Recognise uncertainty

Explain uncertainties as clearly

as possible, including your

strategy for dealing with them.

4.7 Involve Affected Parties

Investigation, remediation and development activities can be severely hampered and delayed as a result of local protests. Give communities or their representatives the opportunity to feed into decision making. This will help smooth the process for conducting these activities. Develop a liaison group and provide a single point of contact for local residents. Keep all stakeholders fully informed and do so in a timely manner.

4.8 Explain the Science as Simply as Possible It is essential to be honest about the facts, to explain them as clearly and simply as possible without jargon. Try to ensure plain language is used; where the use of more technical terms is unavoidable make sure you explain what is meant by each term. (A list of „plain English‟ terms for common technical terms associated with land contamination is provided on page 44.)

Contaminated land risk assessments are carried out on the basis of a large number of assumptions. This means that there can never be 100% certainty about the likelihood of a particular outcome, except to say that any conclusions or decisions should err on the side of safety/caution. This uncertainty needs to be explained as clearly as possible, without raising fears.

You also need to ensure that people correctly understand the advice and information that is provided to them. Seek confirmation that information is being understood, if not try another way of explaining it. Use diagrams and pictures as much as possible. It is common practice in contaminated land assessments to produce a „Conceptual Site Model‟. This is a diagram which illustrates how contamination is potentially interacting with people and the environment. Such diagrams can be useful in explaining the need to investigate in certain places, or why certain types of investigation method are required. In addition, aerial photographs and overlays of historical plans superimposed onto current layouts can help put the scale of the issue into context.

Case Study: Involvement

Redevelopment plans for a site were met with strong opposition from local residents, who were concerned about the potential for contamination of the land in question. The local community was promised that they would be fully consulted regarding the plans for redevelopment. A site investigation was organised to establish the presence of contamination, but although local residents were made aware of the need for this work, they were not informed of the anticipated start date or the nature of the work. The residents awoke one morning to find that machinery had been mobilised to the site, and mistakenly assumed that construction was proceeding without their consultation. They were understandably angry, and entered the site to try and prevent the contractor from starting any work.


18

A poorly thought out and insufficiently resourced communication strategy can easily end up costing more than a well-managed and well-resourced one – and result in delays!

It is also essential to demonstrate that every step is being taken safely – and with the safety of all directly affected stakeholders in mind. This will help people to put the relative risk and the investigation, remediation, and development activities into perspective.

4.9 Allocate Budget and Resources It is important to acknowledge that a well-developed and effective communication strategy (and each individual communication exercise) will require a financial budget and human resources. The amount of time and resources required should not be underestimated. For example, a complex site requiring personal home visits to a large number of people will have a much higher cost burden than a more simple communication strategy (e.g. hosting a dedicated internet site). Communication should be an integral part of the overall risk management strategy for the site and resources should be allocated appropriately. It has already been noted that an important element in building and maintaining trust is to provide information in a timely manner. Delays in releasing information may be caused by a lack of human resource, but may be perceived as an attempt to withhold information. It is also important to note that adequate contingency resources should be budgeted for to ensure that further investigation and/or remediation can be completed in cases where the scale of the contamination was underestimated. If an adequate contingency is not sufficiently resourced, the subsequent lack of action will increase stakeholder anxiety and will likely trigger the need for a more complex (and costly) communication strategy. It can also undermine all that a well-developed and effective communication strategy has accomplished and aims to accomplish.

4.10 Work with the Media The media can play an important role in the communication process – either helpful or detrimental. There is a prevalence of „scare‟ stories in the media because bad news and hints of conspiracy, cover-up and extreme risk or danger attract audiences‟ attention. In spite of the often blatant scare-mongering, many people place a lot of belief in what they see or hear in the media.

Case Study: Effective Explanation

The potential risks posed by contaminated land are assessed on the basis of assumptions about the types of people who will be exposed. It is standard practice to consider the most sensitive human „receptor‟ (or person exposed to the contamination). This is commonly a female child, as the physiological properties of females (e.g. their lower average bodyweight compared to males) and particular behaviours of younger children (e.g. frequent hand-to-mouth activity, infrequent hand washing) can make them more susceptible to being affected by contamination. However, these assumptions are only used to calculate a reasonable worst case, and do not imply that contaminants will only affect a certain sex or age class of a population. The risk assessment assumptions were communicated to the residents of a potentially contaminated site. This resulted in local residents mistakenly believing that young girls were at particular risk from soil contamination. This is not only undesirable because of the increased fear and anxiety this causes for certain people, but also because the misunderstanding may lead to certain sectors of the population believing that they are immune to any effects of the potential contamination, which may ultimately put them at greater risk.


19

It is important to adopt a pro-active

approach towards the media wherever possible. However, there may be cases when information should not be given to the media (e.g. when people‟s homes or livelihoods are affected) or should be withheld until the relevant groups have been fully informed and consulted.

There is no shortage of media coverage of a number of high-profile land contamination cases. Land contamination cases often provide the perfect conditions to report a „scare‟ story. They typically have a human angle; play on people‟s fear of the unknown or the unfamiliar; and exploit any lack of trust people may feel in government, public or private organisations. The difference between positive and negative media coverage is often down to the management of the communication strategy. The media can be an important and effective means of communicating information about potential health risks to the wider community, as well as what is being done (or will be done) to address the issue. The media is particularly useful in cases where a site may be used by people from across a large region (e.g. an area of publically accessible open space or conservation area). Where the media are informed about a contaminated site, it is important to ensure that press releases are well timed – ideally occurring after all major stakeholders have been notified. The two case studies provided below illustrate the difference in outcomes between a pro-active, well-thought-out approach to the media and a less well-managed, reactive one.

Case Study 1: The Negative Influence of the Media

A local authority identified residential properties (with domestic gardens) as being sited on top of an unlicensed, uncapped area of unknown fill in a former quarry. Intrusive investigations and possibly remediation works would be required. No strategy for communication had been formally considered or put in place by the local authority. Local authority officers were advised by the council corporate communications team to prepare a letter for the affected residents, but that a press release should first be issued to the local newspaper. On the morning of delivering the letters to residents, officers found that they were racing news reporters to the residents‟ doors. One instance involved a reporter asking a resident questions about her „house on toxic soil‟ whilst she held the unopened letter from the local authority in her hand. The general media coverage of the issue was negative, with unfounded suggestions made that a nearby development might also be affected by contamination – which spread the „blight‟ associated with the site to the nearby development.


20

Media representatives should be provided with a point(s) of contact who can provide consistent, timely and clear

messages.

A lack of response to a media enquiry can be interpreted by the media as reluctance to share information, whereas a proactive approach and constructive responses to the media are more likely to result in balanced coverage of the issues.

Working with the media and providing good background information (e.g. the history of the site, information about how the contamination was created and discovered) can be highly beneficial. It can help:

Ensure that the facts are presented clearly;

Show the community the benefits that will come from improved conditions; and

Avoid the blight which can result from negative media coverage.

It is possible to work with the local media by placing “advertorials” in local newspapers that give a more positive explanation of the proposal(s) than may otherwise be presented in the media. In some cases, stakeholders may approach the media themselves – particularly if they feel frustrated that their opinions and needs are not being taken into consideration, or if their level of trust in the communicating organisation (or the organisation making the investigation and remediation decisions) is low. Such situations are usually indicative of a breakdown in, or a lack of communication between, the affected parties and the communicating organisation. This needs to be tackled with the stakeholders themselves, rather than via the media.

Case Study 2: The Positive Influence of the Media

An area of publicly accessible open space owned by a local authority was identified as being a concern because of the presence of contamination. A communications team was set up, including members of the local authority, the Health Protection Agency and the environmental consultant investigating the site. A communication strategy was developed based on a proactive and transparent approach. Typical questions and answers were developed by the communications team so that consistent responses could be provided. A single person was nominated to take editorial responsibility for all media information, leaflets and letters to ensure consistency. All information was released (to media and the community) on the same day. Letters were sent to all residents, schools and businesses within a two-mile radius of the site informing them of the potential health risks associated with the contamination at the site. Letters were also sent to all GPs in the area, together with a copy of the letter to residents and information on the potential symptoms of exposure to the specific contaminants on the site. Media coverage was handled by key spokespeople from the local authority and the Health Protection Agency who were supplied with pre-prepared responses (developed by the communications team) to the likely questions they would be asked. The communications team met regularly to develop clear statements about the site and put together press releases and information letters to be sent out to residents, schools, businesses and local healthcare professionals. The outcome was that all media coverage was positive and did not increase anxiety amongst members of the public.


21

Warning! Your communications team may not have intimate knowledge of the relevant technical details, so be careful when using them to „front‟ communications – unless they have been briefed very thoroughly!

4.11 Use Communications/Public Relations Team Users of this guidance may have a corporate communications team in their organisation with relevant skills that can be utilised through the whole communication process. If your organisation has a communications team, they should be brought into the project as early as possible. The types of support they can provide include:

Issuing proactive or reactive press releases;

Interacting with the media;

Interacting directly with stakeholders;

Providing training on communication techniques;

Advising on appropriate delivery methods; and

Advising on the preparation of „plain English‟ communications or obtaining translations.

At the very least, they should be made aware of the site in question and what is being done. The level of assistance you might need from a professional communications or public relations team will depend on the complexity of the communication involved. Guidance on assessing communication need is provided in Section 5.


22

Different routes to remediation: Do they require different approaches to risk communication?

The underlying principles that create a good risk communication approach will be similar for many sites. However, the different routes to investigating and remediating land contamination (primarily planning development or the Contaminated Land regime) is another aspect of context that you will need to be aware of when considering and developing an appropriate risk communication strategy for your site. See Appendix A for further information on

the Contaminated Land Regulatory Regimes and the Planning System.

See Section 2.2

for information on common issues See Section 3 for

guidance on identifying stakeholders

See Sections 5.2 & 5.3 for guidance

on assessing the communication need

See Section 5.4

for information on selecting communication methods

5. HOW TO DESIGN A COMMUNICATION STRATEGY The information and tips presented thus far collectively provide the foundation for successful risk communication. The next step is to design a risk communication strategy for your land contamination issue.

5.1 Questions to Consider when Designing your Strategy In all cases, the following four questions should be considered when designing your risk communication strategy:

1. What are the local community issues? What are the

important factors (environmentally and non-environmentally

related) at work? Include all easily available information from

site visits, stakeholder input, media records, and local

authorities.

2. Who are the key stakeholders? Identify those individuals

and/or organisations who will be affected by, or who could

affect, the outcome.

3. What are the communication needs? Based on the nature

of the identified potential land contamination hazard and likely

degree of local public concern, how complex will your

communication strategy have to be?

4. What are the most appropriate communication methods

for your issue / site? No single communication method will

suffice. Use a combination of communication methods that

best fit the profile for each stakeholder group, the known or

potential risks, and the identified communication need as

identified.

Information to help you in answering the first two questions is outlined in Sections 2 and 3. Once you have defined what the local community issues are concerning your particular site (see Section 2 for guidance), and who the key stakeholders are (see Section 3 for guidance), the next step is to assess what the risk-communication needs are for your site (Sections 5.2 and 5.3). This must be done before deciding on the type and extent of communication methods that you will use (Section 5.4).

5.2 Assessing the Need for Communication – The Communication Net The complexity and scope of your strategy – that is how many stakeholders need to drawn in and how complicated do the communication methods need to be, will depend on a range of issues and circumstances. It is important to get an understanding of the need for communication need as part of planning your strategy. It would be a waste of resources to develop a complex and sophisticated risk-communication strategy for a low-risk site generating little public concern. Conversely, if a very basic risk communication strategy is developed for a high-


23

Be aware that you may need to increase or decrease your ‘net’ as circumstances change.

Key factors to consider are:

The changing state of scientific knowledge

on the extent and nature of the land

contamination in question.

Changes in the local community at risk.

Changes in the level of media attention.

Other legal and/or political circumstances.

risk site with a wide range of people with conflicting opinions on what should be done with the site, the strategy is unlikely to be successful in generating trust and ensuring smooth progress. Every site is different and the organisation responsible for communicating risk does not have endless resources. Therefore, the strategy must be specific and bespoke to the site, community and stakeholders involved. One way to picture this need for communication is as a „net‟ – with the size of the „net‟ related directly to the complexity and scale of communication required for the site, as determined through your assessment. For a more complex issue a greater number, and more varied types of, stakeholders will need to be involved and more sophisticated methods for communication used (i.e. a wide „net‟). Conversely, for a straightforward land contamination site perhaps only a limited number of stakeholders will need to be involved and a single straight forward method of communication adopted (a narrow „net‟). The size of the „net‟ should be fluid and responsive to changes in communication need throughout the entire risk-communication process.


24

Progression through the inspection and investigation process may identify a change in communication need (requirement for a wider or smaller net). For example, if potentially significant contamination is identified following a site investigation, it will trigger a need for a more complex communication strategy.

Choosing your communication net

Where there is the potential for heightened public concern, a simple communication strategy may only exacerbate concerns and place you „on the defensive‟. Similarly, where there may be an element of community apathy towards historic contamination, a strategy built on notification methods will be insufficient. Under these circumstances, a more complex approach will be appropriate and necessary.

5.3 What Increases or Decreases the Size of the Communication Net? Many aspects will trigger the need for a larger „communication net‟ or conversely indicate a smaller net is required. The types of triggers are discussed in this section. Often these triggers may not exist or become apparent until the communication process is well under way. When this happens, the risk communication needs level (as well as the scope and complexity of your risk communication „net‟/strategy) for the site will increase or decrease in response. These triggers can work in isolation or in tandem with at least one other trigger. Triggers Triggers which make an issue move towards a more „complex‟ and thus have a greater communication needs (wider net) include:

There is a significant risk or potentially significant health risk that needs to be brought to people‟s immediate attention.

There is a dreaded contaminant present/potentially present (e.g. radioactivity, asbestos or something of particular concern to the community).

There is a low level of understanding of the issue.

A large number of people are/may be affected.

Vulnerable people or groups are/will be affected.

There is a low level of public trust.

There is a high level of interest in the site.

There will be extensive disruption (i.e. road closures, noise and disturbance).

A significant community feature is/will be affected (e.g. school or village hall, important nature reserve or play area).

There is a local pressure group or vocal local activist.

The media have taken an interest in the issue. Consequences of complex risk-communication net

A large number of stakeholders will need to be involved.

A wide variety in the types of stakeholders will need to be involved.

Complex method(s) of communication will likely need to be adopted.

A large number of different communications methods may be required.

A relatively large financial commitment is required.

Significant time is required to implement the strategy.

Significant input from the internal communications team(s) is required or provided (see Section 4.10).

As a rule, it is better to err on the side of caution and communicate earlier and more widely, than to communicate late and to a restricted number of stakeholders.


25

Level of public concern One aspect that will affect the size of your „net‟ or communication need is that of public concern. This is illustrated in Figure 5.2 below.

The complexity of, and necessity for, risk communication will increase as a situation moves away from the bottom left on scenario classification diagram (i.e. as risk and /or public concern increases – in other words, as the communication need becomes more complex). A low-risk site with low public concern will require a „simple‟ strategy that is small in scope and may only

need a „watching brief‟, direct mailing or a dedicated information website. A low-risk site with high public concern will benefit from a response that communicates the low level of

risk in such a way that the community understands the information and feels that its concerns have been heard and dealt with sensitively and respectfully. Although there may be little concern from an official and scientific perspective, any lack of sensitivity in responding to the community‟s concerns may affect your organisation‟s reputation, resources and ability to intervene on other contaminated sites. A high-risk site with high public concern will require a complex and proactive strategy to respond to the

high risks and high level of community concern. A high-risk site with low public concern will require a proactive strategy to respond to the high risks and

(relatively) low level of community concern. Here it is important to ensure the community is not inadvertently at risk due to its lack of understanding or dismissal of the risk. Understanding and anticipating stakeholder and public perceptions and concerns (as discussed in earlier Sections 2 and 3) will place you in a better position to decide upon the most appropriate level of complexity for your strategy.


26

The Notification, Consultation, and Community Dialogue general communication approaches represent a continuum of communication methods available for inclusion in

your risk communication strategy.

An effective risk communication strategy

for land contamination will identify a range of communication approaches tailored to each of the key audiences or stakeholders. Examples:

A drop-in centre is unlikely to be the

most appropriate form of communication

in communities of predominantly elderly

people who may have limited mobility.

People living in poorer communities

may not have access to the internet at

home and, therefore, e-mail- or internet-

based information bulletins may not be

appropriate.

See Tables 5.1 – 5.3 for further information

on the wide range of available communication methods.

This guidance may assist local authorities when updating the communications section of their Contaminated Land Regime Inspection Strategy. Also, the communications information documented in your Contaminated Land Regime Inspection Strategy can provide an excellent starting point for developing a site-specific risk communication strategy. You are encouraged to increase process transparency by providing your inspection strategy to stakeholders. This will help them understand the framework in which you are working.

The overall scenario that applies to your site will help you determine your approach to risk communication and how detailed and involved your strategy will need to be. In reality, your strategy will need to evolve over time in response to changing needs and circumstances.

Having considered the level of communication need you will now be in a position to determine the appropriate scope and complexity of your risk communication strategy. Keep in mind that your communication „net‟ will need to expand and contract depending on how the relationship between relative risk and relative concern changes throughout the communication process.

5.4 Communication Methods The final step in designing your land contamination risk communication strategy is to select the most appropriate communication methods given your site‟s assessed communication need (the „net‟), the identified stakeholders/ stakeholder groups and the local/community context. The communication methods available to you are wide-ranging and can be grouped loosely into three categories. Each category exhibits increasingly complex/involved communication methods:

1. Notification (Table 5.1)

2. Consultation (Table 5.2)

3. Community Dialogue (Table 5.3)

The tables provide a summary of possible communication methods suitable for particular audience(s) and their benefits and limitations. Note that an effective risk communication strategy will take methods from each of the three categories as necessary, and adapt them to the changing circumstances relevant to the site.

It may be that you may start within one category and move into the other two as your communication „net‟ expands or contracts. However, keep in mind that it is very difficult to move from more complex communication methods to less complex ones, as your stakeholders have come to expect that level of communication.


27

Tables 5.1 to 5.3 provide a summary

of the main communication methods and the appropriate audience(s) for each that you may choose to include in your land-contamination risk -communication strategy.

A range of different communication methods should be considered when developing your communication strategy. Notification methods (Table 5.1):

Notification methods are simple ways of conveying basic information that, for the most part, require no direct engagement with affected parties or the wider public.

A notification-based strategy will generally suit a site with relatively simple communication needs (i.e. requires a „simple‟ „net‟).

This may be limited to landowners or directly affected residents.

Notification forms a critical first step in the risk communication process. Consultation methods (Table 5.2):

This group of methods involves direct engagement with stakeholders. Who these stakeholders are is likely to be determined by the nature of the site and the level of community involvement in the issue.

A consultation-based strategy will generally be appropriate for a site with moderately complex communication needs (i.e. requires a „moderate‟ „net‟).

The objective of using consultation methods is to involve all interested parties in reaching an appropriate resolution.

Community dialogue methods (Table 5.3):

A community dialogue-based strategy may need to be adopted for a site identified as having complex communication needs (i.e. requires a complex „net‟).

This group of methods requires a significant level of direct engagement with a wide range of stakeholders and stakeholder groups.

These methods may also be necessary where there is an apparent indifference to the risk within the community.

5.5 Reviewing your Risk Communication Strategy It is advisable to review your site risk-communication strategy on a regular basis, as circumstances will change throughout the various stages of the land contamination investigation and remediation process. You may want to coordinate your review with your progression from one communications stage to the next:

1. Identification of an issue;

2. Development of an understanding of the nature and extent of the land

contamination;

3. Awareness of available options for addressing the contamination;

4. Selection of option(s); and, finally,

5. Remediation of the contamination.


28

Different routes to remediation: Do they require different approaches to risk communication?

The underlying principles that create a good risk communication approach will be similar for many sites. However, the different routes to investigating and remediating land contamination (primarily planning development or the Contaminated Land regime) is another aspect of context that you will need to be aware of when considering and developing an appropriate risk communication strategy for your site. See Appendix A for further information on the Contaminated Land Regulatory Regimes and the Planning

System.

In general terms, it may seem preferable to escalate a communication process from less complex to more complex as better information about the land contamination issues becomes available. However, you must consider expanding the communications net carefully. This is because the expectations of stakeholders and members of the public will have been raised. If you are perceived by the public as becoming less communicative (because you switched to an approach that involves less direct/frequent engagement), you could undermine public and stakeholder confidence in the communication process – and in you or your organisation to act as a trustworthy party. You must be clear to stakeholders on your reasoning behind a decrease in communication. Alternatively your original perception of the site as being a „hot potato‟ communication wise may not be borne out and it may be possible to scale back communications. Throughout the project there will need to be an ebb and flow during times of peak activity and less so at other times.


29

Table 5.1 - Notification Methods: Generally suitable for use at sites with a simple/small communication net

Audience Method Objective Summary Advantages Limitations

Media General public

Press releases (and associated activities)

Raise awareness and improve interest in the issues. Stimulate interest in participation.

Use all media channels to issue information and promote the proposed approach(es) under consideration. Production of written and display materials.

Reaches a wide range of stakeholders and general public.

Requires support of a professional communications team. Message control can be lost once the information is released to the media; on-going monitoring and support is required.

Local community Media

Community newsletters

Notify and stimulate interest within an entire community.

Delivers information about the land contamination issue and promotes stakeholder and community support. This can be either through an existing newsletter, or through a specifically developed and targeted publication.

Allows messages to be controlled. Reaches all households in the selected community. Encourages staff to be transparent in decision making. Demonstrates stakeholder views are important and that positive steps are being taken to inform the community.

Does not guarantee that information will be read; many people throw such newsletters away as “junk mail”. Poor levels of literacy within some groups may act as a barrier to accessing information.

Occupiers of affected land

Letter notification Notify those people most likely to be affected directly by any decisions made.

Direct correspondence sent to occupiers providing information on options/proposal and how to stay involved in any decision-making process.

Ensures people most likely to be affected by decisions receive appropriate information.

Information may be treated as “junk mail” and may not be read. Information may not reach some affected groups.

Local community Community leaders Politicians

Public meeting Make information accessible to local stakeholders and public.

Enable discussion of issues.

Provides an opportunity for potentially affected individuals to find out about plans, and to question and comment on them directly.

Can open up an information channel to a wide group of people and enable interactive dialogue. Questioning can improve understanding of the issues from stakeholder perspectives. A well run meeting can help build trust and credibility.

Limited potential for communicating information effectively but often requested / expected by local communities. Public Meetings need to be structured and key points noted to avoid misunderstandings. It is generally difficult to predict the outcome of meetings and they can often deteriorate into confrontation when feelings are running high. Need to reinforce with additional communication methods.

SNIFFER UKLQ13: Communicating Understanding of Contaminated Land Risks May 2010

30

Table 5.2 - Consultation Methods: Generally suitable for use at sites with a moderate/medium communication net; builds upon the Notification methods


Affected residents and immediate neighbours

Door knock Engage directly on an individual level.

Targeted information delivery direct to each household in the affected area.

Controls the message. Takes information directly to key stakeholders. Appreciated by many as an essential and worthwhile approach.

Requires trained staff to undertake activity. Time and labour intensive. Two people are required to go into people‟s homes. This is both for personal safety and to ensure a witness is present to anything said.

Neighbours Local community Community leaders Media

Information „road show‟

Take information directly to local stakeholders

Well prepared, staffed display with information on the concepts under consideration.

Supports social learning. Allows information to be provided to a local audience.

Road shows can sometimes appear to be a “selling” exercise rather than an attempt to listen to and engage with people.

Regulators Local officials

Direct correspondence by letter, email or telephone call

Provide decision makers with information and enables significant issues to be addressed early on in the process.

Direct correspondence with key relevant council officers that provides and gathers information on options/ proposal and plans for the decision-making process.

Can help foster a positive relationship with the officials. Increases transparency in decision making.

Officials may sometimes be too busy to respond and engage effectively.

Local politicians Regulators Local officials

Issue formal consultation documents

Enable detailed and controlled information to be read by key local decision makers and policy formulators.

Formal communication with key relevant council members that provides information on options/proposal and plans for the decision-making process.

Local politicians will have strategic local knowledge which they will use when providing their official response(s) to proposals. Detailed and controlled information can be provided directly to a key target audience. It can establish credibility with key local decision makers for being open and ‟up front‟ with information.

There may be a conflict of allegiance for councillors (e.g., between community values and party political stances). Sometimes councillors will not comment. A lack of response may not be indicative of a lack of interest in the issue and this could be misleading when assessing feedback. Letters may not be read. The issue may be used politically during election periods.

Local politicians Regulators Local officials

Presentation Involve local policy and decision makers.

Tailored briefing sessions to a group of invited, relevant councillors.

Targets selected stakeholder representatives. Provides an opportunity for mutual understanding of needs and concerns. Reduces the likelihood of confrontation. Enables discussion around a range of issues.

There is a risk that the wider public may not always support the output of such closed-invite discussions. Preparing for and giving a presentation can be time and labour intensive. It may be viewed as seeking support / lobbying for a particular resolution.

Community leaders Members of Parliament (MPs, MSPs, etc.)

Meetings supported with information provision

Use existing community contacts to cascade information to stakeholders Involve relevant, national-level policy makers and consider their strategic viewpoints..

Face-to-face meetings with community representatives can begin the cascade of information into a community. Information about the proposal can be sent directly to people representing the wider community. Provide information about the issues to local MPs and gain feedback on behalf of the range of communities within the affected area.

Opportunity exists to reach a wide range of people living in, working in, visiting, or using the resources of the area through trusted networks. MPs can act as credible sources of information and improve engagement with local stakeholders.

Information may not reach socially isolated members of the community. The message may be modified (without approval) to suit a local community agenda. MPs might adopt strong stances during election periods that will influence stakeholder perceptions if they think this will be helpful in their own canvassing.

Neighbours Hard-to-reach groups

Targeted correspondence

Include hard-to-reach stakeholders and consider specific view points.

Information about the proposal can be sent directly to people and groups with special needs.

Helps involve hard-to-reach groups. Helps ensure that special needs are considered.

Not necessarily representative of wider public view points.


31

Table 5.3 - Community Dialogue Methods: Generally suitable for use at sites with a large/complex communication net; builds upon the Notification and Consultation methods


Local community Community leaders Media

Community drop-in session

Make information accessible to local residents and other stakeholders. Enable one-to-one discussion of the issues.

Can replace the public meeting as the main way of creating a local presence and dialogue with residents and others. Taking the form of an informative drop-in session, the structured but more informal format allows interested parties to find out about issues at their own pace.

Avoids the stress and heat of a public meeting by allowing a flow of stakeholder dialogue throughout the event rather than a contained and often confrontational dialogue. Allows interested parties to find out about issues at their own pace without the pressure of speaking before a large group of people. Can be arranged at the invitation of a local group. Fosters small-group and one-on-one discussions. Builds credibility.

May attract a limited audience. It is potentially difficult to document public input. Staff intensive. It has the potential to be hijacked by local activist groups. Drop-in sessions require planning, good preparation and skilled implementation, which may not be readily available.

Local community Community leaders

Presence at a local community event

Raise awareness among wider stakeholders within a local community.

Have a presence / staffed display at pre-established community events (e.g., summer fairs or school open days). Staff and/or information materials are available to answer questions and concerns.

Accessible and user friendly approach. Unlikely to reach the entire local community. Timetable restrictions according to local events programme. These events tend to be in the summer months.

Regulators NGOs/ pressure groups Community leaders

Stakeholder forum / Roundtable workshop

Include interested parties with wide ranging perspectives in a workshop (or working group) to consider options.

Brings together interested parties to tackle an issue collectively.

Allows specialists to work alongside local residents and other interested parties to find a preferred way forward. Supports joint learning.

Need to ensure membership is inclusive and representative. May require specialist facilitation. Participants may not remain involved for the entire process.

Individual members of the public

Telephone hotline Provide access to information. Provide a feedback option for those who find it difficult to get involved in other ways.

People can be referred to the information hotline for further details.

Provides a flexible feedback option. Overcomes potential issues with literacy barriers.

Requires trained staff and professional management; a poor service is more damaging than no service.

Individual members of the public

Web-based consultation

Notify and gain feedback from a wide range of stakeholder interests.

Dedicated website with facility to accommodate feedback.

Accommodates individual availability for participation. Can provide easy access to a library of relevant documents for those seeking extra detail. Participants can be invited via e-mail or can be self-selecting and seek to become involved directly. Easily quantifiable indication of extent of engagement. Can reach large numbers of people easily and at relatively low cost.

Will exclude some social groups (i.e., the aged, illiterate and low-income groups with no internet access). Requires efficient web management and rapid, good quality response to stakeholder input. Only those with an interest are likely to participate.


32

Appendix B provides some useful

questions and prompts to think about before communicating with either local communities or developers.

6. DELIVERING YOUR MESSAGE: TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION ON THE DAY This section provides more detailed tips and guidance on the practicalities of communicating effectively about land contamination on a day-to-day basis, and concludes with key practical tips to help you communicate. It often helps to break down the communication process into the following three considerations:

1. What information is to be communicated (The Message)

2. Who is delivering the information (The Messenger)

3. How the information is to be communicated (The Means)

6.1 The Message, Messenger and Means

The Message should always be simple and concise. It should comprise a statement, backed up with supporting evidence or third-party authorisation, and should lead the audience to a conclusion. Use leaflets, handouts, diagrams, posters, and web sites – all with as much good visual detail as possible. There will often be occasions where questions cannot be answered immediately (e.g. when the results of a site investigation, or the outcome of a risk assessment are awaited). The message during these times should be open and honest. If you do not know, say so; but give a realistic timescale for when the answers will be available. Then ensure you communicate this information in a timely manner. The Messenger ideally should remain the same for a particular community (or group of stakeholders) throughout the entire communication process. This makes it easier for the same, consistent message to be delivered and a relationship to develop and be maintained. However, consider whether it is appropriate to name a single person as a point of contact. It could potentially lead to problems with harassment or delays in relaying information due to a lack of availability (e.g. too much work, illness, holiday), which could negatively affect trust. Ensure that all personnel working on a project are briefed in how to respond if they are asked questions. For example, site-investigation contractors may be approached by members of the public (or the media) asking them what they are doing. It is important that a clear, consistent message is available to give out in these circumstances (or a point of contact for more information) to avoid misleading or incorrect information being given out. Often, the types of questions which may be asked can be pre-empted, allowing consistent responses to be generated in advance. The Means of Delivery requires a great deal of forethought. You need to think about the most appropriate way(s) to communicate with your audience(s) (see Section 5.3). This should be based on who your stakeholders are; an assessment of their needs and likely concerns; and the type of proposal under consideration (see Tables 5.1 to 5.3 for potential communication methods).


33

Limit Primary Messages

It is recommended that you limit the number of primary messages are provided during communications with highly concerned parties to three (3). If

you provide more than three primary messages, you run the risk of the most important issue being forgotten. To make that information count, ensure that your primary messages are clear, concise, provided early and repeated for emphasis.

You should keep records of all communications, no matter how small the discussions may seem at the time. Often, a small misunderstanding can become amplified into a much larger issue.

6.2 Top Practical Tips for Communicating Risk Effectively ‘On the Day’ The communication of risks is itself a skill that may be acquired through formal training. In particular, sensitive land contamination issues require skills in listening and knowing how to listen. Listening and responding appropriately, and knowing the best forums in which to listen, give the communicator credibility. These skills can be developed and practiced to improve your ability to communicate effectively. It is recognised that not everyone involved in a land-contamination risk communication process will be a trained communicator. The following 10 tips will help you, whether you are communicating risk to stakeholders in person or briefing specialist communications teams. Use Simple Language and Choose Your Words Carefully Try to keep the amount of technical terminology, industry jargon, acronyms and abbreviations to a minimum. Land contamination professionals often refer to „significant harm‟ or „significant possibility of significant harm‟ and use a variety of technical terms and acronyms – many of which could cause alarm or confusion if used without explanation or qualification. Using unfamiliar terms to your audience can alienate them; whereas making the effort to explain carefully what you mean and checking that everyone understands what you are saying will help to establish you as trustworthy and credible. Try to avoid using words that have multiple connotations, are heavily nuanced or emotive. Recognise that people lead busy lives and do not have the time to process large amounts of complex information, and that making information more accessible is not the same thing as „dumbing it down‟. Ensure you communicate all the relevant information in a format tailored to your audience. Limit your communication to a maximum of three primary messages to avoid overloading your audience with too much information/data. This primary message technique is applicable to all types of communication (e.g. conversations, presentations, fact sheets, brochures, display materials, and videos). Your key (or primary) messages can be supported by a range of other forms of communication materials, which should either re-emphasise the same key points or provide verification or independent opinion on the matter. Be Aware of the Level of Concern and Varying Perceptions In some situations, people may feel concerned and upset, and this disrupts their ability to process information. In other situations where you need to raise people‟s awareness, their lack of concern may make it difficult to gain their attention. You should be able to assess the level of concern by considering the risk perception factors (discussed in Section 4.2) as they apply to your key audiences and stakeholders. It helps to work within people‟s perceptions when you:


34

Make the issue visible to people by showing diagrams, plans and proposals.

Point out the benefits of (but do not try to “sell”) the proposed solution to the community.

Give people a sense of involvement. Actively engage with them and give them an opportunity and sufficient time to voice their views and concerns. They may have valuable suggestions on, for example, improving the organisation and timing of work.

Use Pictures and Diagrams People are able to process and retain more information if illustrative materials (e.g. graphs, charts, images) are provided. Amongst other things, illustrations can help people:

Understand where contamination is within a site;

Understand how contamination is being released into the environment;

Imagine what drilling or other investigation equipment might look like;

Imagine how the site might look after remediation; and

Understand more fully what is being considered in response to the contamination (see also Section 4.7).

Addressing the Desire for a Guarantee People may ask you for guarantees that there is no risk from the contamination, or that none will remain after remediation. Given the uncertainties involved in land contamination assessment, and that there is no such thing as “zero risk”, absolute safety cannot be proven and should not be promised. However, you can provide other guarantees (e.g. the site will be operated to meet all relevant safety guidelines; assessments will be carried out in accordance with current good practice guidelines; and the people employed to work on the project are qualified to do so). Of course you must make sure these “guarantees” are entirely appropriate and justifiable before using them; some possible examples of “guarantees” that might be given are suggested in the box below.

Be Prepared Ensure you are fully briefed and prepared when meeting key stakeholders and members of the public. Have the appropriate files and other information to hand. Take time to think in advance about the kinds of issues or questions that are likely to arise and how you will address them (see Appendix B for example questions). Bear in mind that each stakeholder group may ask different questions (e.g. homeowners may ask questions about their health or property; medical professionals may ask questions about appropriate lines of communication, diagnosis or treatment). Failing to prepare is preparing to fail; so take time to prepare for the expected and the unexpected. Lack of preparation gives people the impression that you are unprofessional, are not taking their

Examples of guarantees related to human health that you might consider communicating if it is justifiable to do so:

We always seek to put the health of the public and our employees before everything else.

Government guidelines, based on international health research, will be followed.

The evidence so far suggests that the site will be safe if our guidance is followed sensibly.

We understand that you may be worried about this, so we will provide independent testing of the

contamination levels for you. We can do this before and after the work has been undertaken.


35

issues seriously and do not respect their concerns. It will undermine their confidence in you. Good preparation builds confidence and trust.

Empathise Express yourself in a way that shows you care about people‟s concerns. Demonstrate that you care by listening and being responsive to their concerns. It may help to use case studies of similar projects to demonstrate that those affected are not alone, and that such problems can be resolved successfully. Listen – and Respond! Provide people with plenty of time to tell you what they think. Do not interrupt or try to give them a response until they have had time to get everything off their chest. Demonstrate that you are listening with your body language and by writing down notes. Most important of all, if you say you are going to do something (e.g. you will provide more information or get a third party to make contact with stakeholders) make sure you do it. If you fail to deliver, people‟s confidence in you will be undermined. Timing Keep people informed and up to date with information, and consider how the timing of your communications is linked in with the overall risk management strategy for the site. For example, ensure that the relevant information reaches people before site investigations begin, so that they understand the timetable and the overall process. If you are responsible for organising a meeting, think about the most convenient time for your audience. Resident meetings may be most appropriate during the evenings to allow people who work during the day to attend, while meetings with school or business representatives may be most appropriate during the day. Be aware of school holiday timings when thinking about consulting with schools or families with children, and of religious and public holidays generally. It goes without saying that meetings should always be attended promptly. If you are running late, do as much as you can to let people know what the situation is and when you expect to arrive. Appearance Think about how you present yourself when you first encounter a stakeholder – whether on the telephone, at a meeting, or on site. The first contact is very important in convincing people that you are committed to working in an open, honest way. Be polite. Body language accounts for a very large part of effective communication. Non-verbal communication, such as body language, conveys information about how you are feeling, what you are thinking, and your social status. The key is to ‟know‟ your audience. Talking to Larger Groups of People When emotions are running high, public meetings are generally the least effective arena for communicating with people. This is because when people are upset, they mainly come to such meetings to “get things off their chest” and are not inclined to listen to other points of view. At the same time, we know that many people feel shy and intimidated in a public setting and will be disinclined to express their opinions in public if they feel they may be embarrassed. Such meetings can deteriorate into “shouting matches” where the views of a noisy minority can dominate proceedings. In the worst cases, public meetings have even been known to degenerate into physical confrontation. So if you have to attend or organise a public meeting, you must not rely upon it as an


36

effective, stand-alone communication method; you will need to consider it as just one method within a more carefully thought-out communication strategy. The box below provides some pointers for conducting public meetings.

A better approach to a public meeting may be a “drop-in centre” where people can read information and talk to staff on a one-to-one basis. Advice for running “drop-in centres” is provided in the box below.

Key Pointers for a Public Meeting

Think carefully about when and where the meeting will be held to make it as easy as possible for people to attend, and give plenty of warning of the details.

Set a time limit and agenda. Find a good chairperson for the meeting who will ensure things run

to time and will provide an opportunity for everyone to express their viewpoint.

Be prepared. Think about issues that will likely arise and consider how you will answer them. Plan three (and only three) key messages you want to get across.

Keep your presentation short. Key messages should be delivered in the first part of the speech.

Ensure that visual presentations are not cluttered, cramped, or overpowering.

Supplement your presentation with other materials (e.g. fact sheets or information packs) that can be taken away.

Ensure that the information provided is straightforward, jargon free, and concise. Graphs should

be as simple as possible and explained in layman‟s terms.

To help things run smoothly, ensure that all members of the speaking panel have met each

other in advance and can operate effectively as a team.

Remember that the purpose of the meeting is to seek a cooperative approach, not a conflict.

Allow time for questions and encourage the audience to participate in constructive dialogue.

Ask questions. This will ensure that you gain a fuller understanding of stakeholder issues, and will also demonstrate that you are actively listening to and are interested in what people think.

Write down all the main points raised and make sure any promised actions are addressed.


37

Key Pointers for a Drop-in Centre

Greet people and lead them through the display(s) or allow them to walk through the material themselves if they wish. Above all, listen to what they have to say.

Do not try to „hard sell‟ any proposed solution; rather, emphasise that it is a carefully planned and considered approach.

Point out the merits and know which alternatives were considered (including any residents‟ proposals), and be able to explain in detail why they were not viable / or had a less favourable impact.

Explain you are not a health expert, but all work and facilities will comply with / meet national

standards. Provide advice on how to seek further information or support on health issues.

Drop-in sessions require between 4-8 staff representing a range of different specialities.

It is essential to have good posters supported by handouts that can be taken away. Remember that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Try to focus on one-to-one or small-group discussions around a display or poster. This is a

really effective way of communicating.

Ask questions. This ensures that you gain a fuller understanding of stakeholder issues and also

demonstrates that you are actively listening to and interested in what people think.

Be aware that drop-in sessions can quickly turn into an impromptu public meeting. Try to be firm about how many people gather together and direct people into smaller discussion groups.


38

7. SUMMARY OF KEY CONSIDERATIONS This guidance emphasises the need to communicate as effectively as possible when dealing with land contamination issues. In summary, the key considerations for effective risk communication of land contamination are:

1. Remember that risk communication is not a one-way process of telling people „the

facts‟, but is about engagement with affected parties and key stakeholders so that

they become part of the solution.

2. You need to understand what drives people‟s key concerns; think carefully about the

factors that are most likely to influence those concerns and how the issue is likely to

develop.

3. People‟s concerns may be related to family, health of children and pets, house

prices, as well as a variety of past and present local issues.

4. Think about the context or scenario you are dealing with and prepare an appropriate

communication strategy. Do you need to raise people‟s awareness of a possible

hazard or respond to their concerns about a perceived risk? While every issue and

situation will be different, you will need to implement an overall strategy to guide your

communication activities.

5. You do not need to treat every case of land contamination as a major communication

challenge. You should assess the communication need for your case and decide

whether a process of notification, consultation, community dialogue, or a

combination of these is most appropriate. Then choose which communication

techniques are the most relevant to your overall strategy and the context of the

issue.

6. Identify your key stakeholders based on the identified communication need for your

site. Use your internal communications staff. If appropriate, consider how best to

work with the media and what the impact(s) of this will be.

7. Early action, good preparation, transparency and openness are essential for creating

trust in the process. Work with those who are trusted locally to build bridges when

public and stakeholder confidence is low.

8. Being a good communicator and being „good with people‟ requires skill and training.

Take the best advice available and work with people who provide different,

complementary skills to improve the communication process.

9. Review progress and remember that risk communication is a process. Your strategy

should adapt to changing circumstances and it must work in parallel with the risk-

management process for the site.

10. Finally, try to keep your messages simple. Risk assessments of land contamination

involve many complexities and uncertainties. Yet stakeholders and members of the

public will need clear, succinct, easily understood information and advice.


39

8. REFERENCES

Breakwell, G.M. & Barnett, J. with Lofstedt, R., Kemp, R. & Glaser, C. (1999) The impact of social amplification of risk on risk communication. University of Surrey Final Report to the Health and Safety Executive. HSE CRR332/2001. Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (2007) Public affairs and communications on contaminated land projects: A case study of South Car Park, Coventry. Bulletin CSB 8. www.claire/co.uk/library Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Strong and Prosperous Communities: The Local Government White Paper, CM6939-I. Department for Communities and Local Government (2008) Letter to Chief Planning Officers: Model planning conditions for development on land affected by contamination. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Environment Agency (2004) Model procedures for the management of land contamination. Contaminated Land Report 11. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33740.aspx Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006a) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA „Contaminated Land‟ September 2006. Circular 01/2006. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/land/contaminated/pdf/circular01-2006.pdf Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006b) Assessing Risks from Land Contamination – a proportionate approach. Soil Guideline Values: The Way Forward. November 2006. CLAN 6/06. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/land/contaminated/pdf/clan6-06.pdf Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2008a) Improvements to Contaminated Land Guidance: Outcome of the “Way Forward” Exercise on Soil Guideline Values. http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/land/contaminated/pdf/wayforward080722.pdf Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2008b) Guidance on the Legal Definition of Contaminated Land. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/land/contaminated/pdf/legal-definition.pdf Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office (1990) Planning Policy Guidance 14: Development on Unstable Land (PPG14) http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/government/en/1020432885972.html Environment Agency (2003) Participatory risk assessment: Involving lay audiences in decision on environmental risk. Environment Agency Technical Report E2-043/TR/01. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront?lang=_e Environment Agency, NHBC and CIEH (2008) Guidance for the safe development of housing on land affected by contamination. R&D Publication 66:2008. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/SR-DPUB66-e-e.pdf Environment Agency (2009a) Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soil. Science Report SC050021/SR2. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/TOX_guidance_report_-_final.pdf

http://www.claire/co.uk/library

http://www.claire.co.uk/



http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33740.aspx

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/land/contaminated/pdf/circular01-2006.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/land/contaminated/pdf/clan6-06.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/land/contaminated/pdf/wayforward080722.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/land/contaminated/pdf/legal-definition.pdf

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/government/en/1020432885972.html

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront?lang=_e

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront?lang=_e

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/SR-DPUB66-e-e.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/SR-DPUB66-e-e.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/TOX_guidance_report_-_final.pdf




40

Environment Agency (2009b) Updated Technical Background to the CLEA Model. Science Report SC050021/SR3. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/CLEA_Report_-_final.pdf Health Protection Agency (2008b) Land Contamination and Public Health: An Introduction to Land Contamination for Public Health Professionals. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1242198452556?p=1158934607604 Health Protection Network / Health Protection Scotland (2008) Communicating with the Public about Health Risks. http://www.hps.scot.nhs.uk/pubs/Publication_Detail.aspx Hill, M., Penfold, J., Harris, M., Bromhead, J., Collier, D., Mallet, H. and Smith, G. (2007) Good practice guidance for the management of contaminated land on nuclear and defence sites, for SAFEGROUNDS Learning Network. CIRIA Publication W13. www.ciria.org/safegrounds/guidance_main.htm Her Majesty‟s Government (2007) Planning for a Sustainable Future: White Paper, CM7120. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2000) Guidelines on Improving Participation in Environmental Decision-Making. www.greenchannel.com/iea/consulta/htm Inter-Departmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (1998) Risk communication: A guide to regulatory practice. http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/committees/ilgra/risk.pdf Law Society (2001) Warning Card on Contaminated Land Liabilities. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/ National Research Council (1989) Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Network for Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe (2001) Communication on Contaminated Land. http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20COMMUNICATION%20ON%20CONTAMINATED%20LAND.PDF Network for Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe (2001) Do‟s and Don‟ts of Communication on Contaminated Land. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004) Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23). http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicystatement23 Regeneration of European Sites in Cities and Urban Environments (2004) Methodological guide. Best practices in citizen participation for brownfield regeneration. Work Package 5 – Deliverable 5-1. http://www.rescue-europe.com/ Scottish Executive Environment Group (2001) Contaminated Land Inspection Strategies: Advice for Scottish Local Authorities.

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/CLEA_Report_-_final.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/CLEA_Report_-_final.pdf

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1242198452556?p=1158934607604



http://www.hps.scot.nhs.uk/pubs/Publication_Detail.aspx

http://www.hps.scot.nhs.uk/pubs/Publication_Detail.aspx

http://www.ciria.org/safegrounds/guidance_main.htm

http://www.ciria.org/safegrounds/guidance_main.htm

http://www.greenchannel.com/iea/consulta/htm

http://www.greenchannel.com/iea/consulta/htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/committees/ilgra/risk.pdf

http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/committees/ilgra/risk.pdf

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/

http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20COMMUNICATION%20ON%20CONTAMINATED%20LAND.PDF

http://www.nicole.org/news/downloads/NICOLE%20COMMUNICATION%20ON%20CONTAMINATED%20LAND.PDF

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicystatement23



http://www.rescue-europe.com/

http://www.rescue-europe.com/


41

Scottish Government (2000) Planning Advice Note 33: Development of Contaminated Land. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2000/10/pan33 Scottish Government (2006) Part IIA Statutory Guidance – Edition 2. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/06/05131212/0 Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (1999) Communicating Understanding of Contaminated Land Risks. Project Number SR97(I1)F. www.sniffer.org.uk/ Scottish Environment Protection Agency website http://www.sepa.org.uk/land/contaminated_land.aspx Sustainable Urban Brownfield Regeneration: Integrated Management Bulletin (2007) Communicating risk on contaminated sites: how best to engage with local residents. Bulletin SUB 6. www.claire/co.uk/library

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2000/10/pan33

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2000/10/pan33

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/06/05131212/0

http://www.sniffer.org.uk/

http://www.sniffer.org.uk/

http://www.sepa.org.uk/land/contaminated_land.aspx

http://www.claire/co.uk/library


42

9. GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS BOOKLET Brownfield Derelict, abandoned or underused, often post-industrial land. (3) Conceptual site model (CSM) A representation of the characteristics of the site in diagrammatic or written form that shows the possible relationships between contaminants, pathways and receptors. (1) Contaminated land Land which is affected by contamination. There is also a legal definition of contaminated land, see Appendix A. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) An assessment of the potential impacts (positive and negative) that a proposed development may have on the environment. Greenfield Previously undeveloped land. Ground Investigation See Site Investigation. Groundwater Water beneath the ground surface. (3) Harm This means harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which [living organisms] form a part and, in the case of man, includes harm to his property. (4) Hazard A property or situation that in particular circumstances could lead to harm or pollution. (1) Land affected by contamination Land that might have contamination present which may, or may not, meet the statutory definition of contaminated land. (1) Local Authority responsible for considering planning applications for development on land affected by contamination, and are the lead regulator under the Contaminated Land regime. MP Member of Parliament. NGO Non-Governmental Organisation. Pathway A route or means by which a receptor could be or is exposed to (or affected by) a contaminant. (1) Receptor In general terms, something that could be adversely affected by a contaminant (e.g. people, an ecological system, property or a water body). (1) Remediation An action taken to prevent or minimise, or remedy or mitigate, the effects of any identified unacceptable risks. (1) Remediation strategy A plan that involves one or more remediation options to reduce or control the risks from all the relevant pollutant linkages associated with the site. (1) Risk A combination of the probability, or frequency of occurrence of a defined hazard, and the magnitude of the consequences of the occurrence. (1)


43

Risk assessment The formal process of identifying, assessing and evaluating the health and environmental risks that may be associated with a hazard. (1)

Risk communication strategy Approach developed specifically in response to a defined public health issue or health protection incident. (2) Site investigation The collection and analysis of soil, surface water, groundwater, soil gas and other media as a means of further informing the conceptual model and the risk assessment. This investigation may be undertaken in a single [stage] or [several] successive stages. (1) Stakeholders Individuals or organisations with an interest in the scope, conduct and outcome of a risk management project. (1) Uncertainty A lack of knowledge about specific factors in a risk or exposure assessment, including parameter uncertainty, model uncertainty and scenario uncertainty. (1) Sources Used to Compile this Glossary (1) Environment Agency (2004) “Model procedures for the management of land contamination” Publication

CLR11. Published by the Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD. First published September 2004 © Environment Agency.

(2) Health Protection Network (2008) Communicating with the Public About Health Risks. Health

Protection Network Guidance 1. Health Protection Scotland, Glasgow, 2008.

Published by Health Protection Scotland, Clifton House, Clifton Place, Glasgow G3 7LN. Health Protection Scotland is a division of NHS National Services Scotland. First published September 2008 © Health Protection Network 2008.

(3) Health Protection Agency (2008) Land Contamination and Public Health: An Introduction to Land

Contamination for Public Health Professionals. Published by the Chemical Hazards and Poisons Division (Cardiff), Health Protection Agency, University of Wales Institute Cardiff, Colchester Avenue, Cardiff. Version 1.2, Published April 2009. © Health Protection Agency.

(4) Section 78 A (4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 [c. 43] inserted by Part IIA of the

Environmental Act 1995. Published by the Office of Public Sector Information.

References are presented as requested by source organisations.


44

10. PLAIN ENGLISH GLOSSARY OF TERMS FOR COMMUNICATING WITH STAKEHOLDERS

This glossary of terms is provided to help you communicate potentially relevant terms and concepts to the public in a way that is easy for them to understand. Remember that you should avoid using technical or regulatory “jargon” or acronyms in your communications – particularly verbal communications. However, you need to be able to explain what these terms mean in instances when they are used in printed communications (e.g., data analysis, regulatory standards that must be met).

Aquifer Underground layer of water-permeable rock or soil (e.g. gravel) from which water can be extracted. (3) Brownfield land Land which is currently, or has previously been, developed by man‟s activities (but excluding agricultural land). It is the opposite of greenfield land. Borehole A hole that is drilled into the ground in order to determine the ground conditions; investigate the presence of contamination; obtain samples of soil for analysis; and allow monitoring of groundwater and ground gas. Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) A package of guidance and software, developed by the Environment Agency. It provides a government supported methodology that can be used to help estimate the risks to people from contaminants in soil on a given site over a long duration of exposure. (5) Conceptual site model (CSM) A representation of the characteristics of the site in diagrammatic or written form that shows the possible pollutant linkages between contaminants, pathways and receptors. (1) Contaminant A substance that is in, on or under the land and that has the potential to cause harm or to cause pollution the water environment. (1) Contaminated land Land which, due to substances in, on or under the ground, could cause harm to human health, or the wider environment. See Appendix A for further information. Controlled waters A term which is used to describe the water environment, and also has legal definitions within UK legislation. Includes groundwater, surface water (e.g. rivers, streams and lakes), estuarine and coastal waters. Desk study A desk-based exercise involving the study of historical and current information such as mapping and environmental data, to establish areas or zones where contamination may be expected to occur as a result of past or present activities, and to understand the environmental setting of the site in terms of pathways and receptors. A desk study does not involve the collection of samples. (1) Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA) Numerical risk assessment carried out using site-specific information to estimate risk or develop site-specific assessment criteria against which the concentrations of contaminants found at a site can be compared. (1) Environment Agencies The main environmental regulators within the UK. The Environment Agency (EA) serves England and Wales; the Scottish Environment


45

Protection Agency (SEPA) serves Scotland; and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) serves Northern Ireland. Ex-situ Remediation Where contaminated material is removed from the ground prior to treatment. (1) Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) Numeric criteria derived using generic assumptions about the characteristics and behaviour of sources, pathways and receptors. These assumptions will be protective in a range of defined conditions. The assessment criteria are compared against the concentrations of contaminants found at a site. (1) Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment (GQRA) Risk assessment carried out using generic assumptions to estimate risk or to develop Generic Assessment Criteria. (1) Greenfield land A term used to describe land which has not previously been subject to development. (3) Ground Investigation (GI) See Site investigation. Groundwater Water beneath the ground‟s surface. (3) Harm This means harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form a part and, in the case of man, includes harm to his property. (4) Hazard A property or situation that in particular circumstances could lead to harm or pollution. (1) Health Criteria Value (HCV) Benchmark criteria used in risk assessment that represents an assessment of levels of exposure that pose a risk to human health. (1) Health Criteria Values are typically derived from laboratory studies of animal responses to contamination, or occupational health data. Health Protection Agency (HPA)/Health Protection Scotland/Northern Ireland Public Health Agency Organisations which protect public health by providing support and advice to bodies such as the National Health Service and Local Authorities. In-Situ Remediation Where contaminated material is treated without prior excavation (of solids) or abstraction (of liquids) from the ground. (1) Land affected by contamination Land that might have contamination present which may, or may not, meet the statutory definition of contaminated land (see Appendix A). (1) Local Authority Body responsible for considering planning applications for development and are the lead regulator under the Contaminated Land regime. Monitoring A continuous or regular check of environmental conditions, such as for the presence of ground gas. NIEA Northern Ireland Environment Agency.


46

Pathway A route or means by which a receptor could be, or is exposed to, or affected by a contaminant. (1) Planning Service (in Northern Ireland) An executive agency within the Department of Environment, Northern Ireland, which fulfils the Department‟s responsibilities as planning authority. Pollutant linkage The relationship between a contaminant, pathway and receptor, which is identified by developing the Conceptual Site Model (CSM). See also Source-Pathway-Receptor linkage. Preliminary risk assessment First level of risk assessment that develops the initial conceptual site model and establishes whether or not there are any potential pollutant linkages. Receptor In general terms, something that could be adversely affected by contamination (e.g. people, an ecological system, property or a water body). (1) Remediation An action taken to prevent or minimise, or remedy or mitigate the effects of any identified, unacceptable risks. (1) Remediation strategy A plan that involves one or more remediation options to reduce or control the risks from all the relevant pollutant linkages associated with the site. (1) Risk A combination of the probability, or frequency of occurrence of a defined hazard and the magnitude of the consequences of the occurrence. (1) Risk assessment The formal process of identifying, assessing and evaluating the health and environmental risks that may be associated with a hazard. (1) Risk communication policy Sets out general principles on how the organisation will relate to their stakeholders, including the public and the media, and how they will communicate information on risk. (2) Risk communication strategy Approach developed specifically in response to a defined public health issue or health protection incident. (2) SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Site investigation (SI) Involves the collection and analysis of soil, surface water, groundwater, soil gas and other media as a means of further understanding the condition of the site and to inform the risk assessment. This investigation may be undertaken in a single stage, or a number of successive stages. (1) Site-Specific Assessment Criteria (SSAC) Values for concentrations of contaminants that have been derived by Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment. The resulting assessment criteria are compared against the concentrations of contaminants found at the site. Source-Pathway-Receptor Linkage The relationship between a contaminant, pathway and receptor, which is identified by developing the Conceptual Site Model (CSM). See also Pollutant linkage.


47

Stakeholders Individuals or organisations with an interest in the scope, conduct and outcome of a risk management project. (1) Standpipe A long plastic pipe, slotted for some of its length, which is installed within a borehole to allow the monitoring of groundwater levels, ground gases or vapours and the collection of groundwater and gas samples for analysis. Trial pit A hole that is excavated into the ground (usually using a mechanical digger) in order to determine the ground conditions, investigate contamination and obtain samples of soil for analysis. Uncertainty A lack of knowledge about specific factors in a risk or exposure assessment, including parameter uncertainty, model uncertainty and scenario uncertainty. (1) Water environment has legal definitions within UK legislation. Includes groundwater, surface water (e.g. rivers, streams and lakes), estuarine and coastal waters.

Sources used to compile this glossary

(1) Environment Agency (2004) Model procedures for the management of land contamination. Publication

CLR11. Published by the Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD. First published September 2004 © Environment Agency.

(2) Health Protection Network (2008) Communicating with the Public About Health Risks. Health

Protection Network Guidance 1. Health Protection Scotland, Glasgow.

Published by Health Protection Scotland, Clifton House, Clifton Place, Glasgow G3 7LN. Health Protection Scotland is a division of NHS National Services Scotland. First published September 2008 © Health Protection Network 2008.

(3) Health Protection Agency (2008) Land Contamination and Public Health: An Introduction to Land

Contamination for Public Health Professionals (2008). Published by the Chemical Hazards and Poisons Division (Cardiff), Health Protection Agency, University of Wales Institute Cardiff, Colchester Avenue, Cardiff. Version 1.2, Published April 2009. © Health Protection Agency.

(4) Section 78 A (4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 [c. 43] inserted by Part IIA of the

Environmental Act 1995. Published by the Office of Public Sector Information.

(5) Provided by the Environment Agency during the consultation period for the document: Health

Protection Agency (2008) Land Contamination and Public Health: An Introduction to Land Contamination for Public Health Professionals.

References are presented as requested by source organisations.


48

Appendix A The Legislative Frameworks


49

APPENDIX A: THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS

There are two primary legislative frameworks in operation in the UK for assessing and managing contaminated land: the Town and Country Planning System and the contaminated land regulatory regimes: Environmental Protection Act 1990 (referred to in this section as „Part IIA‟) in England, Scotland and Wales (note that in England and Wales, the term „Part 2A‟ is also used to refer to the same legislation) and Part 3 of the Waste and Contaminated Land Order (NI) 1997 in Northern Ireland (equivalent to Part IIA). Part 3 is enacted but is not yet in force (at the time of printing). The information provided in this appendix is not intended to be a detailed overview of UK contaminated land legislation. Rather, it provides a summary of the legislative frameworks (i.e. planning and Part IIA/Part 3) and how they are applied within the UK. A flow chart providing a simplified overview of how contamination is dealt with within these two frameworks is provided at the end of this section.

A.1 Contaminated Land Regulatory Regimes (Part IIA/Part 3) The main objective of the contaminated land regimes operating within the UK (i.e. Part IIA and Part 3) is to provide an improved system for the identification and remediation of land where contamination is causing – or has the potential to cause – unacceptable risks to human health and the wider environment. The contaminated land regulations relate primarily to historic land contamination, as „new‟ contamination is dealt with under a wide range of other legislation, such as the Waste Management Licensing Regulations (Scotland) and the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) and regulations across the UK made under the Environmental Liability Directive. The regulatory regimes are based on the principle of „suitability for use‟ and describe a risk-assessment methodology based on the „source-pathway-receptor‟ model. The „source-pathway-receptor‟ model comprises:

The principal pollutant hazards associated with the property (the sources);

The principal targets at risk from the identified hazards (the receptors) (e.g. residents, construction workers and the environment); and

The existence, or absence, of plausible pathways that may exist between the sources and receptors identified.

Whilst the Part IIA and Part 3 regimes are designed for enforcement action, they also influence and interact with the standard planning process for new developments, the assessment of „new‟ contamination and those cases where voluntary remediation is undertaken, as described below. The Part IIA and Part 3 regimes define „contaminated land‟ as “any land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that significant harm is being caused, or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused”. The definition, in all cases, includes pollution of the water environment. The regulations impose a duty on every local authority (or district council in Northern Ireland) to inspect their area periodically in order to identify (potentially) contaminated land. If contaminated land is identified, it is the responsibility of the enforcing authority to identify the appropriate party who will be responsible for remediating the contamination.


50

The appropriate party can be either the polluter or, if the polluter cannot be identified, the owner of the land. A remediation notice can be served to the appropriate party if they refuse to remediate the land voluntarily. If this occurs, the enforcing authority itself can carry out the remediation, and the cost of the remediation can be recovered from the appropriate/responsible party – or a charge can be put on the land. The regulations place a duty on every enforcing authority to keep a register which contains details of the remediation notices served by them under the regulations.

A.2 The Town and Country Planning System The Town and Country Planning system controls the development and use of land. The primary pieces of legislation within the UK are the Town and Country Planning Act (England and Wales) 1990, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, and the Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. A key difference between the planning system and the contaminated land regimes described above is that the latter deals with the contamination risk from a site in its current use. The planning system requires that the proposed use of the land is considered. Therefore the remediation required under the planning system can be different to that which might be required for the same site under the relevant contaminated land regime. Although the contaminated land regimes exist to deal with historic contamination, many, if not most, contaminated sites are dealt with under the planning system. A key criterion under the planning system is that the land does not meet the definition of contaminated land (as provided under Part IIA or Part 3) following development.

Communication process under the contaminated land regulatory regimes (Part IIA/Part 3)

Sites being progressed on the basis of the contaminated land regimes are likely to raise the more challenging aspects of communicating risk from land contamination.

Some particular challenges you might want to consider when communicating risk through the contaminated land

regimes are:

People are more likely to be living on, or using the potential Part IIA/Part 3 site undergoing investigation

(i.e. the site is unlikely to be derelict).

When the relevant contaminated land regime is used, the wording of the legislation and associated

guidance can reinforce the publics‟ fears (i.e. the direct references to “significant possibility of significant

harm”).

Land may be formally identified as „contaminated‟ under the relevant contaminated land regime, but this

could be based solely on the presence of, for example, the existence of water pollution from which there

is no direct risk to humans. This formal identification can cause unwarranted anxiety over health.

The contaminated land regimes allow for „remediation declarations‟ to be placed in cases where, due to

the level of contamination, it is not reasonable to undertake remedial works at this time. This may result in

unique communication issues.

Funding for investigative and remedial works at a site subjected to one of the contaminated land regimes

must be provided by the local authority or government -– as opposed to investigative and remedial works

carried out at a site via the planning process, for which the developer is financially responsible).


51


52

Appendix B Example Questions


53

APPENDIX B: EXAMPLE QUESTIONS

When planning a communications exercise, it is useful to anticipate the types of questions which may be asked. This allows balanced, consistent responses to be provided and avoids the promotion of issues that are not „real‟. The following questions may be asked by any stakeholders involved in a land-contamination communications exercise. The context could be for a contaminated site which is being developed, or a site which has already been developed.

B.1 Starting Points for Local Communities

Why is the site contaminated?

What has been found by the ground investigation?

Who is responsible?

How has this happened?

What are the roles and responsibilities?

How do you know you will not „miss‟ anything?

Can I get a second opinion?

How can I get a second opinion?

What are/will be the health effects for me, my children, my pregnant wife, or my pets?

Is it safe to stay in this house?

Will this affect the value of my property?

Will I still be able to sell my house?

Who will pay for this?

Will I be compensated?

How long will this take to resolve?

Who do I ask, or where do I go for further information?

Is there a need to organise a community action group?

What action will be taken?

Will all the risks be removed?

Will all the contamination be dealt with/removed?

What if you find more contamination or it is worse than you anticipated?

What is the process by which the land will be investigated/remediated?

Have the regulatory bodies followed due process? B.2 Starting Points for Developers

What are the financial risks/long-term liabilities involved in developing a site affected by contamination?

What are the implications of this contamination in developing this site?

How can I ensure that I will get sound advice?

How do I know if this site is contaminated?

What do I need to do to develop this contaminated site?

If there is contamination on this site, what will it cost to remediate it to be suitable for its proposed new use?

communicating understanding of contaminated land … a… · communicating understanding of...

Documents