Use of C4SL's to demonstrate minimal risk.
Could perhaps agree as a community that any CSL use does not negate the following:
1/ Need for DQRA?
2/ Need for uncertainty to be accounted for and examined in the risk assessment process?
For instance for Lead (Pb)?
Kind regards
Ruth
Ruth Willcox
Environmental Protection Officer
Office of the Director of Public Health
Plymouth City Council
Civic Centre
Plymouth
PL1 2AA
T +441752304154
E [log in to unmask]
www.plymouth.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Taylor, Christopher
Sent: 02 June 2014 13:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Land Forum representatives meet CLG representatives
Hi David
As far as I understand, DCLG have never "endorsed" any screening value, and I doubt they are going to start now. They can "signpost" to the work of another Department (DEFRA) but that's about it. Signposting does not equate to endorsing, but it's about as much as we are going to get. When? Who knows? They are stretched for resources at the moment, but hopefully it is soon.
I say it's clear cut. C4SL's can be used in Planning. To be honest, a developer can use any screening value they like, as long as it's applicable to the UK and they can justify it and demonstrate that concentrations below it do not pose an unacceptable risk.
Sites below the C4SL fall into C4 under Part2A. They are therefore not representative of unacceptable risk. Therefore C4SLs can be used in planning to demonstrate this requirement. I don't believe we need a steer from DCLG or DEFRA to reach this logical conclusion.
There should be no debate about low vs minimal risk. The debate should be unacceptable vs. acceptable risk. This is the level the LA should be concerned about according to the NPPF. Actually, this has always been the level the LA should be focussing on, as Annex 2 of PPS23 states:
2.18 A potential developer will need to satisfy the local authority that unacceptable risk from contamination will be successfully addressed through remediation without undue environmental impact during and following the development.
The use of GACs/SGVs to demonstrate this has been widely accepted by LA's as this is a "belt and braces" approach. But nowhere does it state that the LA must ensure a low or minimal risk. We just need to ensure that there is no "unacceptable" risk. And C4SLs can be used to demonstrate this.
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 11:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Land Forum representatives meet CLG representatives
Nicola,
Can you confirm,
a) when the "signpost" to C4SL will be updated in Planning Policy Guidance? and
b) will this signpost mandate the use of C4SL methodology for planning/development purposes?
If so, will this end the uncertainty/debate as to whether C4SL (Low -but not minimal- Risk) are appropriate for planning purposes?
Best wishes
David E Jackson
(Sometime Freelance)
--
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.
********************************************************************************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential or sensitive information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it to any other person or take any action in reliance. If you have received it in error, please notify your system manager and the sender as soon as possible and then delete it from your system.
|