Hi Richard
I've attempted to put my brain into gear however I’m having a little difficulty unpicking what appears to be opinion from policy and legally binding guidance. A lot of official guidance we get from Govt these days is more of a wish list than a considered explanation/expansion of legal duties set out in appropriate legislation. Unfortunately most of the time it’s not worth the parchment it’s written on. Cheapens government in my view. The CIEH really should not feel the need to get involved, but it does and I for one am grateful for that.
• For clarity, are you saying that the appropriate level of risk that should be accepted by LAs (LPAs) for remediation is equal to "not SPOSH"? In other words find SPOSH level then set the remediation 0.1mg/kg below that level.
• What is the meaning of the phrase "as a minimum" in s121 of the NPPF? Does this not allow the LPA a degree of discretion as to deciding what the appropriate level of risk should be for remediation within the planning regime in their area? Are policy decisions of this nature not part of the local planning process, providing they are reasoned? How does remediation to minimal risk not fit into the NPPF, as part of a holistic approach to health protection?
• SP1010 (Appx H, 4.4) suggest that remediation to ALARP may be appropriate for non-threshold contaminants and that ALARP remains the overriding principle for non-thresholds even where there is minimal/low concern for human health. In other words ALARP for non-threshold would appear to be reasonable, how does this fit into NPPF?
And finally
I do not believe that “many” LA have been requiring remediation to GAC level. Developers often require this in order to avoid going down the DQRA route. I also don’t think PPG23 was a poor document, it was certainly clearer in its meaning than the corresponding sections of the NPPF.
Regards
Matt
|