The client has taken the advice of a solicitor who, at my last contact,
was preparing a case for legal action along the lines of "it is not
reasonable for the LPA to object based on non-statutory guidance that
has been withdrawn and recently published [Defra] policy ignored".
I'll be interested to see the outcome of cases like that. My
understanding is that the CLEA 1.06 methodology, model, tox and science
reports haven't been with drawn there just effectively superseded in
Part 2A by C4SL. They're still a bench mark for minimal/tolerable risk.
Outside Part 2A whatever the intention may be as the previous arguments
have shown it's not that clear cut and safe or suitable for use are in
the eye of the beholder. Especially when DCLG who are responsible for
the planning regime have remained silent on what they consider
safe/suitable for use to mean in a contaminated land context and the PCD
caveats itself with the "However, policy responsibility for the National
Planning Policy Framework and associated Planning Practice Guidance
falls to the Department for Communities and Local Government" phrase.
The arguments on the meaning of safe and suitable for use could with a
following wind allow a LPA to not accept the C4SLs.
|