This paper critically evaluates Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS 23) Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by Contamination, issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The critique identifies several significant shortcomings in the policy, including its failure to address contamination prevention before it occurs, the absence of public awareness provisions, and a lack of compensation mechanisms for affected individuals. The paper also notes that the policy does not adequately categorize hazardous materials by threat level, and that its remediation focus appears tied to economic development rather than public welfare. Drawing on Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and related guidance, the author argues that stronger top-down coordination, clearer authority for cleanup personnel, and broader citizen empowerment are necessary for the policy to be truly effective.
An assessment of Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS 23): Planning and Pollution Control, Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by Contamination raises several questions that prevent it from being considered a complete or perfect solution to the problem of land contamination. The policy itself notes that:
"The potential for new contamination to arise is generally controlled through other environmental protection legislation, including Parts I and II of the EPA 1990 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999." (PPS 23, Annex 2)
This acknowledgment highlights a critical gap: the policy largely defers contamination prevention to other legislation rather than addressing it directly. The result is a document that is reactive rather than proactive, focused on managing existing contamination rather than stopping it from occurring in the first place.
The policy contains no meaningful mention of any method or process for preventing land contamination before it occurs. A stronger policy would have addressed, even in brief detail, how to identify emerging problems, devise solutions, and report concerns to the local authority before contamination takes hold. Such provisions would give the public and responsible parties a clearer understanding of what constitutes the preconditions for the policy to become operational.
The policy would also have been more effective had it outlined strategies for raising public awareness about contaminated land. Ordinary citizens who lack specialist knowledge of hazardous waste disposal need to understand the dangers posed by industrial, natural, and other forms of contamination. Empowering individuals to identify warning signs is important because, in many cases, the root cause of a problem is visible to local residents long before it is escalated — yet people fail to act because they assume what they observe is a normal part of industrial or urban activity, until the damage becomes severe.
All available media — print, electronic, and other channels — should be used to inform the public. A well-resourced awareness campaign could significantly reduce the damage caused by contamination by encouraging earlier reporting and more responsible disposal practices.
The policy also fails to establish any compensation mechanisms for those affected by land contamination. A comprehensive policy should address how damages are to be paid — whether by the local authority, the central government, or the responsible source of contamination — and should set out a framework for different categories of harm.
Compensation provisions should account for a range of damages: harm to property such as houses, flats, and personal equipment; damage to crops and privately owned land; and losses sustained by nearby businesses. Particular emphasis should be placed on health-related harm, which is widely considered more serious than property damage alone. A proper categorization of health impacts should range from minor illnesses to severe long-term conditions such as organ failure and life-threatening diseases.
If a structured compensation regime were in place, organizations responsible for waste disposal would face stronger financial incentives to plan disposal carefully and responsibly, in order to avoid liability for substantial claims. The current version of PPS 23 Annex 2 contains no provisions addressing compensation of any kind.
The policy discusses contamination as a general phenomenon, but it should be more specific about the threats posed by different types of chemicals, organic materials, and other dangerous substances. From a broad analytical perspective, policymakers should have compared these different categories with one another to clarify which pose the greatest threats and which are of lower concern.
In this regard, providing more detailed information about the most common types of hazardous materials that pollute land — and then comparing their relative risks — would give both practitioners and the public a clearer sense of priority. Without such a framework, the policy treats all contamination as broadly equivalent, which does not reflect the varying degrees of danger that different substances represent.
The central focus of PPS 23 Annex 2 is the remediation of contaminated land in the context of new development. The policy states:
"Close co-ordination between planning authorities, transport authorities and pollution control regulators is essential to meet the common objective that where development takes place, it is sustainable." (PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control)
"Hazardous materials not ranked or compared by risk"
"Remediation appears tied to economic development interest"
"Insufficient authority and coordination for cleanup personnel"
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.