Paul
I am sorry but it seems that I have not explained my dilemma properly.
The issue here is not about the effectiveness of the solution today, but rather the maintenance of that solution so it remains effective for tomorrow.
NPPF says "the onus on the developer/ owner to show the site IS safe?” but is that the same as showing that it will be safe tomorrow or next year or in perpetuity?... in which case how does the proponent show that?
Contributors seem focussed on the gas issues here (which are undoubtedly important) but the same long term management problems apply equally to maintenance of the cover system, (and presumably MNA schemes, containment soil bunds, containment cells, leachate attenuation wetlands on other sites as well).
Look at my 1970s example... the cover system was well thought out and pretty robust, even by todays standards, but how does a proponent (or regulator) show that the scheme is still going to be “safe” or effective in the future. What measures should have been put in place to ensure that the protection afforded by the cover system is maintained in perpetuity?
Another example relates to the creation of a “repository” (clay line cell) within the car park of a modern commercial development, designed to hold asbestos waste found on site. A reasonable solution to a intractable problem, but how is the integrity of the cell managed and maintained in the future.
How can we be sure that all these schemes, approved today, are going to be maintained and monitored and managed tomorrow? It seems caravan legislation provides some solution - so why not apply something similar to bricks and mortar?
I hope that I have clarified?
David E Jackson
|