Our Planning are taking the attitude that it is a 'more sensitive' end-use since you are doubling the number of receptors on-site. They are also rejecting applications without a desk study and only accepting those that I approve! Maybe the Planners should be getting their heads together? Seems to me the CLOs are doing a canny job of it!
Marie Mitchinson
Technical Officer - Non Commercial
0191 3872200
Chester-le-Street District Council
Civic Centre
Newcastle Road
DH3 3QT
www.chester-le-street.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 23 July 2008 09:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Planning Conditions
Thanks to all who have responded so far - it seems the general consensus is
to push for some form of pre validation upfront to the planning
application. Whether I can convince Planning that this is necessary is
another thing!
One suggestion was that since the precautionary principle approach has been
rejected is to push forward with the argument that the site comprises made
ground due to having previously been occupied by a house.
----- Forwarded by Tracy Hilton/AREAMANAGEMENT/RCBC on 23/07/2008 09:38
-----
|---------+--------------------------------------------->
| | Martin Wright |
| | <[log in to unmask]> |
| | Sent by: Contaminated Land |
| | Management Discussion List |
| | <CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES@JISC|
| | MAIL.AC.UK> |
| | |
| | |
| | 22/07/2008 16:50 |
| | Please respond to Martin Wright |
| | |
|---------+--------------------------------------------->
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: [log in to unmask] |
| cc: |
| Subject: Re: Planning Conditions |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I would not invoke the precautionary principle in this case but instead
rely on the requirement to receive a suitable description /site recce of
the site from elsewhere in PPS23 AND in theone app form.
Its pointed out in the PPS and annex that mapping can only give a partial
view of the site and is generally incapable of identifying natural
contamination, radon issues, made ground or features of the site that would
not have triggered a revised map. Not seeing anything on an old OS map is
not a sufficient description of the site to eliminate a range of possible
issues for planners and building control (though it does reduce the odds).
If your planners are using the national oneapp form then the tick box
approach of that requires an assessment if the use is sensitive even if the
previous use is not contaminative its an OR rather than an AND requirement.
(has anyone ever identified a list of sensitive uses in this context from
central government).
I would certainly push the applicants to demonstrate a basic understanding
of the site. its current and historic setting though not usually require
this be undertaken by an environmental consultant unless there was reason
to suspect something quite significant (such as a soil gas issue).
These small sites frequently take more time due to the handholding required
but it is quite satisfying when you help reveal an issue perhaps the
applicant was not aware of (recent examples include finding an extension
who's proposed strip foundations would have tried to bridged a large pit
of and an old HGV yard disguised within farm outbuildings).
You will probably find your planners requiring photomontages of such sites,
maybe structural surveys of old buildings etc, They don't have much reason
not to enhance that slightly to get enough information for you to decide
whether or not in a particular case you think the issues are significant
enough to refuse, condition or pass an application.
Martin Wright
Scientific Officer
Environmental Protection
Vale Royal Borough Council
Wyvern House
The Drumber
Winsford
Cheshire
CW7 1AH
tel:- 01606 867520
fax:- 01606 867885
(Embedded image moved to file: pic21724.gif)
Tracy_Hilton@REDC
AR-CLEVELAND.GOV.
UK To
Sent by: CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES@JISCMA
Contaminated Land IL.AC.UK
Management cc
Discussion List
<CONTAMINATED-LAN Subject
D-STRATEGIES@JISC Planning Conditions
MAIL.AC.UK>
22/07/2008 14:58
Please respond to
Tracy_Hilton@REDC
AR-CLEVELAND.GOV.
UK
Dear Subscribers,
Following previous debate on the Model Planning Conditions which was very
helpful, I am now faced with a dilemma over the advice I provide to
Planning for single dwellings on sites with no previous history of
potentially contaminative activity. I tried to convince Planning that the
applicant should submit basic Desk Study information to account for the
time lapsed since the last published map and to set the site in its
contemporary setting. I justified this with paragraph 2.27 of Annex 2 of
PPS23 which states that on a precautionary basis the possibility of
contamination should be assumed where considered uses are particularly
sensitive to contamination e.g. housing etc. I also quoted paragraph 2.42
requiring the applicant to submit information to determine whether an
application can proceed due to the proposed use being particularly
vulnerable. Planning came back with the argument that PPS23 paragraph 6
states "the precautionary principle should only be invoked when there is
good reason to believe that harmful effects may occur to human, animal or
plant health, or to the environment."
Thus, if this is how we are to interpret the precautionary principle as
detailed in Annex 2, it appears that Planning are right and it is
acceptable for us to only consult the in-house records and if no
contamination is suspected we can't justify conditioning the application
for a contaminated land survey. On top of this, Planning believe that
there is currently a legal appeal at the High Court based on abuse of the
precautionary principle but unfortunately they haven't managed to find the
details yet. Can anyone shed any light on this?
Kind regards,
Tracy Hilton
Contaminated Land Officer
Tel 01287 612420
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the
MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information contact Vale
Royal IS
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail and any attachment are sent in confidence for the addressee
only and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient
of this message, you must not disclose, distribute, copy or take any action
in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender. The views of the author may not necessarily
reflect those from Vale Royal Borough Council.
Vale Royal Borough Council virus scans all inbound and outbound e-mails
(plus any attachments) but does not guarantee such messages to be virus
free. The onus is on the receiving recipients to check they are virus
free.(See attached file: pic21724.gif)
|