Marie thanks for the quote I will now use it to bash consultants with (no
offence to any good consultants, ok Sarah!!) oh and your argument to
developers is pure genius. It does say 'should' be required and in the
constant battle to improve standards I have noticed 'should' often means
isn’t especially in reports initially submitted in order to discharge
conditions.
I am back tracking a little on my previous hard-line stance in order to
allow for the small scale developers, conservatories and small scale
changes of use and once again my argument relies on pragmatism.
My counter argument is and perhaps a compromise;
“LPAs should require the applicant to provide with the application such
information as is necessary to determine whether the proposed development
can proceed.” (PPS23 annex 2, 2004)
A desk top study is carried out before a site reconnaissance. If enough
information is gathered at this stage clearly there is no need to carry
out a walk over survey which may add additional cost. I believe £1500 is a
little high for the low level conservatories, small scale changes of use
or one man bands building a single dwelling. Henry Land previously
suggested £200 for a good enviro-search surly interpretation of this with
a geological summary and conceptual model would be far cheaper and could
provide sufficient information to base a preliminary risk assessment on?
If this type of desktop doesn’t suffice then the LA could require a site
reconnaissance. This is all based on the process working as detailed in
PPS23
|