David
What "change" in policy? This is always been the case, as my reference to the old PPS23 indicates. The LPA is and was responsible for ensuring that after development, there are no unacceptable risks and the land does not fall into Part2A territory. The NPPF just says this in fewer words than PPS23, but there has been no "change".
CLO's are just uncomfortable accepting a level of risk higher than minimal. But nowhere did it state that the LA should ensure that after development, the risks from contamination should be "minimal".
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 David E Jackson
Sent: 02 June 2014 14:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Land Forum representatives meet CLG representatives
Chris,
"Acceptability" is a fundemental policy decision influenced by social, political and economic factors and DEFRA/DCLG should be accountable for that change in policy.
You are clearly an advocate for the C4SL method. It would be helpful if you could provide your LA's new definition of "acceptable" risk ? (i.e. 1 in 10^6, 10^5, 10^4 lower?). Has this change been ratified by your democratically elected Council representatives?
Best wishes
David E Jackson
(Sometime freelancer)
--
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.
|