Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
|dc.identifier.citation||Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 2013; 30(2):106-121||en|
|dc.description.abstract||In 2009, changes were made to the Environment Protection Act 1993 (SA) that inserted Pt 10A into the Act to address site contamination. Although site contamination had been recognised in South Australia as a problem since the early 1980s, it took almost 30 years to achieve a comprehensive set of legislative controls in that State. While a number of the new controls reflect similar provisions in existing legislation elsewhere, one unique aspect relates to the provisions that deal with responsibility for site contamination. The starting point is that the person who caused site contamination should be held responsible for addressing that contamination. However, under s 103E, a vendor or transferor of land may seek to transfer liability for site contamination subject to meeting certain requirements. This article looks at those requirements, noting the conflict that has arisen on how they should be interpreted. The article is critical of the failure to initiate complementary changes to the land-use planning legislation in South Australia, without which it will be difficult to achieve the full effect and benefits of the site contamination controls.||en|
|dc.publisher||L B C Information Services||en|
|dc.rights||© Thomson Reuters||en|
|dc.subject||Environemnt Protection Act 1993 (SA); South Australia; Site contamination||en|
|dc.title||Site contamination requirements under the Environment Protection Act 1993 (SA) - An analysis of their nature and effect||en|
|dc.identifier.orcid||Leadbeter, P. [0000-0001-5325-9671]||en|
|Appears in Collections:||Law publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.