Chris
Thanks for your comments.
The responsibility for ensuring safe development rests with the developer, however the determination of what is "safe" rests with the LPA. Hence the "as a minimum" phrase. It is for each LPA to decide how much, in its reasonable view taking account of the new use and other relevant considerations, residual risk it is prepared to tolerate.
This somewhat misses the point of my question though.
Where a ph2 goes through the risk assessment process using generic assessment criteria chosen by the consultant (and hopefully agreed by the LPA) is it correct to adopt a second set of criteria for the ph3?
Lets remember what generic assessment criteria are, they are conservative values that should give a great deal of confidence that the site does not present a risk, allowing the risk assessment to be simplified so the need for site specific criteria can be avoided. They are not in themselves remediation values, however if you want to come up with a remediation value rather than relying on GACs you will need to undertake a site specific assessment.
LA contaminated land officers should not be making developers remediate to a GAC level, but the developer may find it expedient to do this to avoid the expense of developing site specific values . That is the choice the developer is faced with as part of their responsibility for ensuring safe development.
|