I've read Mr Hill's comments with interest.
Examining our own land brings back the old question of who 'polices the
police'
I agree with Mr Hill that due to the lack of resources available to many of
us this discounts the option to inspect our neighbour's land.
Neither would our resources cover bringing in an external consultant.
If one authority were to inspect another's land, who's strategy and
methodology would they use and (i) could the two authorities agree over the
result and (ii) no doubt there will be differing levels of expertise between
authorities.
I do not have a problem with inspecting our own land as it is a good place
to start putting proceedures and strategies into a working context.
If we can't competently inspect our own land then how can we be expected to
inspect other people's.
If some people wish to question the validity of LA's inspecting their own
land then by all means let them have it inspected and pay for it themselves
as part of the democratic process.
A large majority of the sites we will be required to consider will be of no
or little concern anyway so bringing in external help to cover all LA sites
would hardly be cost effective
I have a good working relationship with the contaminated land officer in one
of my neighbouring authorities and if in doubt I would ask for his advice or
help but only on a site specific basis and I'm sure he would do the same.
Perhaps the government should arrange for the EA to assess LA land. For LA's
this would remove the question of bias and the cost burdon.
I look forward to seeing other comments on this very relevant topic.
Kind regards
John Patrick
Technical Officer
North Dorset DC
|