Toxic properties list won't be made public

The location of more than 4000 potentially contaminated properties in the Canterbury and Tasman districts will not be revealed in a public register, despite a ruling by the Office of the Ombudsmen to do so.

Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty, who has campaigned for 15 years for "transparency" on toxic sites, yesterday slammed the Environment Canterbury (ECan) and Tasman District Council positions as "unacceptable".

"It's not just the landowner, it's the neighbourhood. People need to know that they are safe," she said. "They need to know that assessment is going to take place where it needs to take place. We need more transparency, not less."

The Office of the Ombudsmen, which investigates complaints about local government, ruled in August that the Hawke's Bay Regional Council had to release its list of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites.

After the ruling, Environment Minister Nick Smith said that he expected councils across the country to release their information about the sites.

The Greater Wellington, Environment Waikato and Environment Southland regional councils were yesterday set to release their lists.

Tasman refused to release its list of 850 sites and ECan said it would release its list of 3400 potentially contaminated properties if applicants paid a fee and signed a memorandum of understanding.

"There's a tension here between the public's right to know and our need to manage the information in a sensitive way. Information about private land can have a significant commercial impact on that owner," ECan director of monitoring and investigations Ken Taylor said.

ECan chief executive Bryan Jenkins said people who wanted the full list would have to pay for the extra work staff would have to put in to prepare it, and they would have to agree to use the information carefully.

"Where you've got information on a particular site which is only a stage in the process in terms of determining what its status is in terms of contamination, one has to use that information quite carefully to respect privacy interests and potential purchasers," he said.

ECan's approach had the support of the Ministry for the Environment, Jenkins said.

More than 2600 properties on the register had yet to be investigated, so their level of risk was uncertain.

The owners of 43 sites confirmed as contaminated, including 12 residential sites, were aware of the contamination risk, he said.

A further 550 sites were classified as "unverified" for various reasons, including difficulty tracking the landowner, lack of clarity over ownership, the process being partway through and the landowner not having got back to the council with information, Jenkins said.

An official report released last year showed poisonous dioxin at 255 sites around the country, including 56 in Canterbury. Dioxin can cause cancer and birth defects.

Delahunty said a full public release of registers was overdue.

"I don't see why you should have to sign a memorandum about what should be public information, let alone pay a fee," she said.

"I just think it's unacceptable that they are saying this when the Ombudsman has sent a clear message that the public has a right to know where these sites are."

Tasman District Council environment and planning manager Dennis Bush-King said owners of potentially contaminated properties had given information on the understanding that details would not be released in a public register.

"In order to manage some of these risks in the environment, you need the co-operation of the property owners," he said. "We don't want to jeopardise the chances of us gaining this information in the future."

Tasman was facing investigation from the Ombudsman over two complaints about failing to release its register, he said.

"We've given an undertaking to the landowners that we will deal with the information in this manner. It remains to be seen whether that is sufficient reason for withholding the information, and that's what the Ombudsman will no doubt rule on," Bush-King said.

The Ombudsman's August ruling said: "There is a wider public interest in the public being apprised of information about sites where there may be a potential for contamination so that they are in a position to assess for themselves whether there are any risks to the environment or their person."

- © Fairfax NZ News