Why the Cheapest Remediation Approach Almost Always Costs More in the Long Run

When the contamination report comes back with findings that nobody was really hoping for, the way that the project team, developer, or landowner responds can say quite a lot about how they view risk, how they plan for liability, and what they see as their obligations to future users of the site. And perhaps one of the most revelatory decisions that landowners and developers make on contaminated projects is the one that seems, on the face of it, to be the most pragmatic and sensible: picking the cheapest remediation option.

On the face of it, it’s a reasonable decision. Remediation wasn’t in the original development budget. The contamination wasn’t something that anyone saw coming. Costs are real, and the cheapest quote from the environmental consultant is the path of least resistance. Pick the cheap option, get it done to a minimum applicable standard, and move on.

The only problem is that this decision can end up being a form of financial self-harm. Minimum standard remediation has a knack of coming back to bite you later. Residual contamination that sits on the verge of an acceptable risk threshold for current use, but will suddenly become a very important issue if the land use changes. Treatment approaches that deal with symptoms rather than dealing with the root cause – for instance, remedying contaminated soil without touching the issue with the groundwater that caused it to move in the first place. Validation reports that satisfy the regulator now, but might not be quite sufficient to give the clean bill of health that a future purchaser’s solicitors will insist upon. For Soil Remediation, visit soilfix.co.uk/services/soil-remediation/

At some point, the cost of going back and addressing these issues that were set aside in order to save a few pounds is going to be far higher than it would have been if the contamination had simply been addressed properly in the first place.