Whilst I agree with Marc that there is no excuse for poor interpretation
or basic lack of data, it is the presentation that we have been fighting
against. Basically, to write all the detailed interpretation in a CLR
ll format takes time. Which hence takes the client's money.
We proposed to the LA's to do the same level of analysis to 250/500m
depending on the relevance, and present it in a table. 1000m would only
be considered if there were particular issues like major aquifer, high
risk development or particularly contaminative processes upgradient.
It would have the same maps, environmental permitting and pollution
info, etc. We would get the relevant data from the petroleum officers,
coal authority, etc etc. But we would simplify the presentation. We
thought it an elegant solution. So did our clients. The LAs didn't,
and many insist on a full Phase 1 style report to come with a planning
application (the new 1App form is to blame I believe).
As an EX CLO, I try not to blame the officers. Planning precedent has
shown that the LA can be sued if they allow development without having
all the info. It may seem reactionary, but no one wants to be the one
responsible for making case law...
Paula
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marc
Fawcett
Sent: 10 June 2009 13:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reduced Desk Studies
Having worked for lots of the big banks environmental management units
in the past (who rely on the short desk study reports on a regular
basis) i feel that i should have quite a bit of experience in the
matter.
Key areas what you can not cut corners on are...
1) a proper review of the datasets the likes of centremaps / envirocheck
produce - several I've reviewed recently have missed pond features etc
in the review section
2) a site walk over visit is critical be it a large or small site
because its a single dwelling doesnt lessen the risk! - this is where
the cost is IMO
When we are talking about cheap cut down versions opposed to full
expensive reports what figures are we talking about? the price
difference between a maps only and a full dataset via centremaps is a
few quid more. Why skimp? We dont - but dont make as much profit on the
reports.... but i can sleep at night....
whilst on the topic of desk studies and problems - i've seen 3 third
party reports run past me in as many weeks. All with a coal authority
reports - each of them had missed the fact that possible unrecorded
workings were likely! please please read the reports properly - things
as important as this are slipping through the net. Theres plenty of
training on contaminated land but not many people know what they are
looking at with a coal report! perhaps the grey area of responsibility
between building control and contaminated land is the cause? shallow
workings for pathways and gas are obviously something we all need to
consider on her with more diligence
*********************************************************************************
This message contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender and then delete the email and destroy any copies of it. Thank you.
Hyder Consulting cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus-free or has not been intercepted or changed.
Any opinions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the Company are neither given nor endorsed by it.
*********************************************************************************
|