Lead shot deposits – the problem
For over three decades, Mary Hurry has called a quiet valley of West Aberdeenshire her home. Since 2016, a nearby farm has been operating a commercial clay pigeon shooting range, with shots ringing out approximately every fortnight for up to several hours. This activity has led to an accumulation of spent lead ammunition (‘lead shot’) on the farm.
Lead is toxic and poses a risk to human health and the environment. Since 2004, it has been illegal to use lead shot for shooting on and over wetlands.[1] In 2021 the UK Health and Safety Executive proposed restrictions on lead in ammunition, citing the severe risks it poses.[2]
Residents in the valley have their water supplied from a local groundwater source. Mary became concerned that the lead shot accumulating on the farm was an environmental and health risk and asked Aberdeenshire Council to investigate the following two questions:
- Is the lead shot leaching into the groundwater, poisoning the drinking water source?
- Is the lead shot contaminating the soil?
Barriers to information and investigation
Mary’s efforts to address her concerns have been fraught with frustration. When she contacted Aberdeenshire Council and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), each deflected responsibility to the other.
Question 1: Contamination of drinking water
- While Aberdeenshire Council’s Environmental Health officials did test Mary’s tap water for lead and reported no unacceptable levels were present, they refused to investigate the potential groundwater contamination from the soil.
Question 2: Contamination of soil
- Aberdeenshire Council acknowledged the presence of potentially contaminating lead shot on the farm but said that only long-term contamination merited an investigation. Aberdeenshire Council passed their responsibility to investigate the contamination to SEPA, who responded that shooting ranges do not require a waste management license, despite lead being a controlled waste substance.
- Mary explained:
“The contradiction was confusing, you make complaints, but you aren’t told about the process and why they come up with these answers. Someone needs to take responsibility!”
- Mary then reached out to her Councillors and MSPs who dismissed her concerns.
- She then went to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to complain about Aberdeenshire Council’s lack of action. They did not uphold the complaint.
- Her last option was to reach out to the environmental watchdog Environmental Standards Scotland (ESS), but they were unable to investigate individual regulatory decisions.
Mary said she felt “abandoned and voiceless” and reached out to ERCS for advice.
ERCS legal advice and assistance
ERCS guided Mary in submitting a stage 1 complaint to ESS, which was not upheld because they considered this an individual case and not a systematic problem.
ERCS challenged ESS’s position through two representations which highlight a systemic problem in the regulation of lead shot contamination in soil.
- The first representation argued that Aberdeenshire Council’s interpretation of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was flawed, and that the Council had neglected its statutory duty to inspect potentially contaminated land. ERCS stated that Aberdeenshire Council failed to adhere to their Contaminated Land Strategy 2011, paragraph 4.2.5.8 (page 25) which states:
Site inspection will remain flexible. If a site not currently scheduled for inspection is brought to the attention of the Local Authority and there is specific evidence that it is impacting a receptor it will be included in the inspection programme at an early date.
- The second representation contended that SEPA’s failure to require a waste management license for shooting ranges was unlawful because lead shot, a controlled waste substance, is being deposited on land.
ESS dismissed both representations, accepting the Council’s position and SEPA’s position. ERCS submitted stage 1 and stage 2 complaints to ESS, challenging their dismissals on the grounds that they did not address the key legal points raised but they were not upheld.
Mary described the response from ESS as “disappointing but not unexpected”.
Voices for Justice – Lessons learned
Reflecting on her arduous journey, Mary offers advice for others facing similar battles:
- Unite and amplify: Combine your voice with others. Mary knew many residents shared her concerns about the shooting range, yet only three lodged formal complaints.
- Document meticulously: Keep detailed records of all observations. In Mary’s case, this meant logging the frequency and duration of shooting events and the resultant noise, bolstering her case to the authorities.
- Seek expert support: Engage technical experts if financially possible. In addition to seeking free legal advice from ERCS, Mary would have liked to have engaged an environmental consultant to collate more evidence to present to the Local Authority on the risks of contamination.
- Seek legal advice: Contact ERCS for free legal advice on an environmental issue.
Environmental and health risks remain unassessed
- The level of lead contamination in the groundwater supply and soil remains unknown.
- Aberdeenshire Council continues to refuse to inspect potentially contaminated land, despite its legal duty to do so.
- SEPA’s policy that shooting ranges do not require waste management licences remains in place.
Mary’s experience of trying to obtain regulatory oversight of lead contamination is another example of the gaps in environmental regulation, and the failure of public bodies to listen and respond to legitimate environmental concerns.
Many thanks to Mary Hurry for taking the time to give this interview to Cornell Hanxomphou, ERCS Rights Officer July 2024
[1] The Environmental Protection (Restriction on use of lead shot) (Scotland) (No.2) Regulations 2004
[2] UK REACH – Restriction Proposals 004 – Lead Shot in ammunition and the accompanying HSE press release.
