Thanks David - sometimes I do feel like I am talking to myself! ("no you don't" - "yes I do!”)
I think most would agree that planners have a role in controlling inappropriate and incompatible development that might denude the integrity or effectiveness of remediation schemes, and in my LA this is usually managed with pretty well. But of course the scenarios I am most concerned about are unlikely to trigger consultation or planner involvement irrespective of whether PD rights are in place or not. I think it unlikely that a child's sand pit or a veggie patch or blocking a sub-floor void or the installation of a stud wall or new bathroom suite (puncturing a gas membrane) will require any kind of planning or building control approval, but all have the potential to render ineffective the remediation strategy in place to protect the occupier.
The reference to Part 2A inspection is an interesting point worth developing. Under the current system, site is either, Cat 4 Definitely not CL, or Cat 3+ SPOSH is present (and may require, subject to other socio-economic factors, regulation).
There does seem to be a need for a Part 2A Category 1.5, which might represent a site, which is "definitely not contaminated land NOW, but might be CL in the future (if the effectiveness of the remediation strategy is removed or denuded in the future)".
In Australia (yawn-yawn) there is such a statutory classification; "Remediated for Restricted Use" where a risk assessment has determined the site represents a risk (i.e. SPOSH), remediation measures have been put in place and where certain Restrictions on Use (e.g. a ban on excavations below Xm depth, gas monitoring/management and reporting measures, MNA etc) are imposed and maintained so that future risk to public health can be managed and mitigated to an acceptable level. Restrictions on Use appear as memorials on title (Restrictive Covenants), are subject to mandatory disclosure, are provided to planning authorities to inform future redevelopment decisions and are available to the public through free open access database.
This process allows marginal land to be remediated and redeveloped, where the only viable, cost effective remediation solution is a long-term management option (such as a cover system, containment cell or MNA or gas monitoring and management) and allows residents and communities to make informed choices about whether to purchase and occupy that land. The restriction on use can be conditioned such that responsibility for annual inspections, monitoring and reporting, and maintenance works falls on the causer or owner/occupier (and not on the public purse), all of which is required to maintain the integrity of the scheme, the classification of the site and ultimately the acceptability of the occupation. Failure to adhere to the restriction on use results in further RA and remediation. It is, in many respects equivalent to a Site License for a remediation scheme -(and in completing the circle)- like the caravan site license suggested in my initial query!
Comments always welcomed.
David E Jackson
Sometime doppelganger
|