A consultancy view on walkover visits...
Quite simply, I cannot see how the aims of a desk study can be if a
walkover has not been undertaken. Given the amount of time/effort
involved (it may only take a few minutes to inspect a greenfield site
and take some photos), it seems odd not to undertake a visit. I would
not be comfortable writing, reviewing or authorising a report without
some first-hand input. I certainly wouldn't want to expose our PI
insurance or have to defend our position in court where something as
simple as a site visit hasn't been carried out.
This may be preaching to the converted but historical maps, aerial
photos and other Regulatory Authority records are good sources up to
their limitations. They cannot cover all possible site uses and maps are
often unclear as the the actual use. I have several experiences of major
omissions/error in the envirocheck type reports. A simple wander across
a site can pick up so may points that just can't be obtained in any
other way.
Consultants/LA's should be drumming this into clients/developers; surely
consultants should include a walkover as part of any proposals
submitted. I would have thought that CLOs can stipulate that walkover
visits are an essential element for any third party submitted report?
Duncan
Duncan Fairwood
Senior Geo-Environmental Consultant
BAE Systems Environmental
Brisance House
Euxton Lane
Chorley
PR7 6AQ
01257 242264 / 242000
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Christiaan Wilkinson
Sent: 25 October 2005 09:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PPS23 and Land Contamination
*** WARNING ***
This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an
external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Hi Paul,
Long time since we have spoken
You're right of course a walkover is always preferable but not always
included in reports and I hope the discussion has clarified CLO's
concerns
regarding what we should be asking for and when. I am still of the
opinion
that given the right circumstances a desktop study may not require a
walkover survey. It has also shown there is a marked difference between
LA's in their application and interpretation of the guidance how much of
this is related to officer experience, resources and council policy I
wouldn't like to say but I believe by having these discussions we can
formulate a better understanding of the day to day issues we all face.
As you pointed out developers are in it for the dough and I particularly
like the point Paul Nathanail made that no real extra effort or cost is
involved if the right person does a combined geotechnical/land
contamination walkover. This would largely be the responsibility of the
consultancies to educate their clients that such a simple exercise could
have a significant effect on the success of a site investigation. (I am
sure good Consultancies do this already)
Christiaan
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
|