Matt
I would just like to dissect your first paragraph:
The responsibility for ensuring safe development rests with the developer, - true, it states this in the NPPF.
however the determination of what is "safe" rests with the LPA. - where does it say this? The NPPF clearly states what planning policies and decisions should include. It does not state that for contamination, the LPA shall determine what is "safe".
Hence the "as a minimum" phrase. - based on this reasoning then, "not Part 2A" would mean safe.
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. - yes, it is up to the LPA to decide what is unacceptable/acceptable. I would argue that land that is not capable of being determined under Part 2A is acceptable (as this would be the trigger level for regulatory intervention).
Back to your question. If the applicant wishes to deviate from an approved remediation spec, and the deviation is reasonable and the residual risks on site are still acceptable then I would approve it, as long as there is statement justifying the deviation attached to the submission for public record.
Regards
Christopher Taylor
Enforcement Officer
Regulatory Services
Brent Council
Tel: 020 8937 5159
Fax: 020 8937 5150
www.brent.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matt Rhodes
Sent: 12 May 2014 11:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: C4SL
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.
--
The use of Brent Council's e-mail system may be monitored and communications read in order to secure effective operation of the system and other lawful purposes.
|