Contaminated Sites – implications of the Ombudsman’s decision

1. Contaminated Sites – implications of the Ombudsman’s decision

2. Overview • Statutory overview of contaminated sites management • Nature of the contaminated sites registers • Overview of the Ombudsman’s decision • Implications

3. Statutory overview of contaminated sites management • What is a contaminated site? • What triggers clean up requirements?

4. Nature of contaminated sites registers • Focus on historical use • Tend to be populated by potentiall contaminated sites • Very few verified sites

5. Overview of the issue • Related to media attention prior to last general election • Issues • Most sites unverified • Information difficult to extract in global sense • Some information on LIMs • Some decisions of Ombudsman on similar issues favoured non-disclosure using LGOIMA tests

6. The arguments against release • Impact on property values/commercial sensitivity • Privacy Commissioner concerned about individuals privacy

7. The Ombudsman’s view • Strong public interest in release • The fact that many sites are unverified is not problematic because the release of information can be accompanied by a contextual statement

8. The Ombudsman’s view • MfE view that such information ought to be provided in PIMs/LIMs (in response to specific information requests • Note : HBRC would release on site specific request and 2 DCs in region had information on LIMs/PIMs

9. The Ombudsman’s view • Privacy Commissioner view that public interest served by site specific release – Ombudsman says not enough • A wider public interest in all persons knowing about potentially contaminated sites in order to assess risks

10. The Ombudsman’s view • Fact that significant costs involved in verifying sites is no justification for delaying release until verification • Release may encourage land owners to investigate • Commercial sensitivity may be valid but outweighed by public interest

11. The Ombudsman’s view • “Identifying potentially contaminated sites is fundamental to protecting the public from any adverse effects caused by hazardous substances”

12. The Ombudsman’s view • Caveat is very important that information released with a contextual statement • Definition of “Unverified HAIL” • Other categories used to describe information about land information • A copy of the HAIL • Information about verification and identification process • Accuracy of Worley listings

13. MfE view • “Delaying release of the report will significantly mitigate against, and in many cases avoid, property owners/occupiers being unnecessarily concerned. Additional time will provide an opportunity for regional councils to notify affected property owners and to do at least some of the basic quality assurance on the unverified lists…

14. MfE view • “…The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council have indicated that a three month delay would enable them to at least partially mitigate the impact on affected property owners. A delay of this length is likely to provide all regional councils with a similar opportunity.”

15. What HBRC have done • Agreed to release information • Wrote to all property owners • Release happening this week

16. Implications • Registers may only list actual contaminated sites • Property owners may cease to cooperate on contamination investigation • Property values are affected • Sale ability affected • All councils affected • National register to come?