The Health & Safety File required under the CDM Regulations should provide details of the residual risks in perpetuity - or am I missing soemthing
Mike Cobbe
Consultant Associate , Land & Development, Atkins Limited
ATKINS
75 years of design, engineering and project management excellence
The official engineering design services provider
for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games
The Axis, 10 Holliday Street, Birmingham B1 1TF
07824 881 837
________________________________________
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES automatic digest system [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 November 2014 00:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Digest - 23 Nov 2014 to 24 Nov 2014 (#2014-10)
There are 8 messages totaling 765 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Risk management in perpetuity (8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:36:29 -0000
From: Russell Corbyn <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
" You can never legislate against stupid."
:D hahahahahaha
Pretty much sums it up.
Nice one!
Russell
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matt Rhodes
Sent: 21 November 2014 16:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
Hi David
I'd go for the restrictive covenant, as this explicitly places a responsibility on the owner and warns them in the process. If they then do something to prevent underfloor ventilation, then on their head be it. This may sound harsh but consider a scenario whereby someone has a gas heater fitted, this is much more common and dangerous, but you would not inspect the flue annually.
You can never legislate against stupid.
Regards
Matthew Rhodes
Pollution Control Officer
High Peak Borough Council, Town Hall, Buxton, Derbyshire. SK17 6EL
Tel 0345 129 7777 (ext 4463)
@ E-mail [log in to unmask]
Website www.highpeak.gov.uk
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:58:49 +0000
From: F J Westcott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
Hi David
It strikes me here that in proposing to cover the site with concrete, the developer seems to be putting the remediation cart before the risk assessment horse.
If the gas regime is CS2, I would be surprised if there is any problem with putting caravans on the site as it is, as the air gap under the caravan will allow sufficient dissipation of any migrating gases. And as these are holiday caravans rather than permanent residences, and presumably no vegetables being grown, the exposure scenario for the soil contaminants will be much less onerous than a CLEA resi/vegetables land use.
Without of course having seen any numerical data, my gut instinct is that a half-decent risk assessment will show that little if any remediation is required. In which case, the institutional management would be less important, or not required at all?
Regards
Frank Westcott
westenviro.com
Technical Solutions for Sustainability and Brownfield Development
Magnolia House, 15a Fore Street, Roche, St Austell, Cornwall PL26 8EP
0330 330 8015
07973 616197
[log in to unmask]
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information and/or
copyright material which is intended only for the addressees named above.
Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised and copying, distribution
or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Westenviro does not warrant that any e-mail messages and attachments are
free from viruses or other defects and accept no liability for any losses
resulting from infected email transmissions.
On 22 Nov 2014, at 13:10, David E Jackson wrote:
> Thanks for the responses...
>
> Firstly, from a technical perspective, the identified risks are from access to the soils - gardens/vegetable consumption etc - hence the proposal to cover with concrete - as well as from the ground-gases. I appreciate the interesting comment about possible changes to the under-concrete gas regime - anaerobic and off-site flow issues- which we will have to look into. Any thoughts on how the proponent can risk model and manage those future changes?
>
> Secondly the institutional management of the site... on discussions with our caravan sites man the site will have to be managed under a caravan site license. Apparently any caravan site (single or group of caravans) must be licensed whether for residential or holiday let purposes. Although the license cannot dictate the design/construction of the caravan itself, it does provide a regulatory mechanism for enforcing conditions over the site, including requiring periodic inspections (by LA and/or by a “competent person”), making good any damage to cover system, clearing under-van spaces or vents and for the provision of an annual inspection and maintenance report at the license holders cost, or indeed any other such H&S measures as appropriate. License fees apply to holiday lets and Council Tax to residential lets which helps off-set the cost of regulation. Failure to comply with conditions triggers enforcement by the LA-EHO. There is a little uncertainty as to who the license-holder is but consensus is that it is the person with control over the “site” under the particular commercial lease or license. This may be a site owner or a individual caravan lot leasee. On the face of it, it is a pretty powerful piece of preventative regulation.
>
> The suggestion of Restrictive Covenants was less well received by my colleagues mainly because they are essentially advisory in nature and as we all known often people dont take kindly to being told what to do - something about being the nanny state!
>
> So armed with my site license conditions it got me thinking... why aren’t all risk management schemes (i.e. cover systems, gas protection membranes and venting systems, MNA) subject to a similar licensing system to monitor and manage their effectiveness in perpetuity? Why does the cover system or gas protection strategy at a caravan site require long term enforceable regulatory oversight, but an identical system at a bricks and mortar development does not. Surely cover systems degrade over time, occupiers grow vegetables and block up gas vents at both caravan parks AND housing estates. Why do caravan occupiers deserve more protection than house owners?
>
> I have recently been looking at a 1970s housing estate on a former industrial site. The risk based solution at the time was to cover the gardens with 300mm of topsoil to minimise exposure to contaminated soils. Unfortunately I (nor the current occupiers) have any idea whether that 300mm cover system has been maintained, or whether occupiers have planted fruit trees through the cover, or whether garden ponds, children’s sand pits or other domestic excavations have exposed contaminated subsoils? In contrast we have a brand new commercial development on an area of made ground found to be producing ground-gases (CS2). Gas protection membranes and underfloor venting were designed, installed and certified by the building inspector, but how can I be sure that these will be effective (or still in place) in 5years from now.
>
> Do I have to with for an “incident”?
>
> It seems that we go to extra-ordinary lengths to characterise and mitigate risk for today, but give scant regard to how to manage that risk for tomorrow.
>
> As ever, your thoughts are welcomed?
> David E Jackson
> Sometime pessimist.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:13:20 -0000
From: Steve Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
Don’t forget that the guidance on ground gas protection is based on the idea of multiple levels of protection and redundancy specifically to deal with the issues of what happens in future. This starts with the underfloor venting - blocking up a significant proportion of the vents should not compromise the safety of the system as the design (yes - there should be a design) should have a suitable factor of safety.
If the venting is completely prevented - there should be a gas resistant membrane to prevent ingress into the building - installed and verified correctly.
Steve Wilson
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Russell Corbyn
Sent: 24 November 2014 11:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
" You can never legislate against stupid."
:D hahahahahaha
Pretty much sums it up.
Nice one!
Russell
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matt Rhodes
Sent: 21 November 2014 16:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
Hi David
I'd go for the restrictive covenant, as this explicitly places a responsibility on the owner and warns them in the process. If they then do something to prevent underfloor ventilation, then on their head be it. This may sound harsh but consider a scenario whereby someone has a gas heater fitted, this is much more common and dangerous, but you would not inspect the flue annually.
You can never legislate against stupid.
Regards
Matthew Rhodes
Pollution Control Officer
High Peak Borough Council, Town Hall, Buxton, Derbyshire. SK17 6EL
Tel 0345 129 7777 (ext 4463)
@ E-mail [log in to unmask]
Website www.highpeak.gov.uk
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:10:15 +0000
From: David E Jackson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
Dear All,
Thanks for your latest contributions... but can we try and stay focused here. As I have mentioned twice before the issue here is NOT the effectiveness of the proposed risk management scheme, but rather how one should ensure that these schemes remain effective into the future.
How do we ensure that vents remain open, cover systems are not disturbed, membranes are not punctured etc etc. into the future? Is there any point in installing a 300mm concrete slab if the next occupier promptly digs it up to grow veggies or relying on a vent space beneath a structure if the next occupier blocks it off and uses it for storage, or encapsulate asbestos waste under a car park which the next occupier turns into a planting bed?. And what about the natural degradation of remediation systems by unchecked plant growth, surface erosion or natural changes in groundwater flows or chemistry into the future?
Is it morally (or legally) justifiable to abandon future occupiers to their ignorance (or is that stupidity?). Is that why we (public health professionals) do the job we do? Are we not just saving up work for the next generation of CLOs? just as those in the 1970s appear to have done (at one of my sites at least?).
You might consider such alternative approaches as the US Superfund (apologies but I am no expert) requiring clean up suitable for "all uses”? or whether regulation of remediation schemes could be achieved through a licensing system (such as caravan site) or a waste permit, or even something as basic as the Australian system of mandatory disclosure and memorials on title (Restrictive Covenants?) with criminal sanctions for failure to disclose? Surely as a profession should be aiming a little higher than simply relying on an expectation that an individual will do the right thing. That’s not much of a basis for a sustainable remediation strategy!
As ever your comments (on topic) are enjoyed and appreciated.
David E Jackson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:30:06 +0000
From: Clive Williams <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
I think your only option is to refuse development consent as this is the only way you can guarantee that some idiot doesn't dig up the concrete and plant potatos. Flippancy aside there is no way that the control of a brownfield site can be guaranteed in the way you describe "inperpetuity". If that were indeed required surely the site is not suitable for residential development where the use of the site is not managed.
Clive
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:45:02 +0000
From: GARETH REES <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
All you can do is put the information out there through both covenants and planning controls and enforce if it comes to your attention that a breach has occurred
As has been said before you can't legislate against stupid
You are making your best attempt to protect future users through remedial works and information. There is not option to abandon the public to its own devices after that fact
Thanks
Gareth Rees MGEOL (HONS) FGS
Environmental Protection officer (Contaminated land and Air quality)
Street Action Team
Note I currently work at North West Leicestershire District Council on Mondays Tuesdays and alternate wednesdays
Council Offices, Whitwick Road,
Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 3 FJ
Direct Line: 01530 454 615
Mobile: 07976 431 236
email: [log in to unmask]
www.nwleics.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clive Williams
Sent: 24 November 2014 15:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
I think your only option is to refuse development consent as this is the only way you can guarantee that some idiot doesn't dig up the concrete and plant potatos. Flippancy aside there is no way that the control of a brownfield site can be guaranteed in the way you describe "inperpetuity". If that were indeed required surely the site is not suitable for residential development where the use of the site is not managed.
Clive
We’re supporting local business by buying local. Local businesses can register for free at www.buylocalgov.co.uk . Buying local is making it easier, simpler and quicker to do business with North West Leicestershire District Council.
__________________________________________
------- Email confidentiality notice -------
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
Please note: Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with North West Leicestershire District Council's policy on the use of electronic communications.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:46:14 +0000
From: GARETH REES <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
That should have read "There is no option but to abandon the public to its own devices after that fact"
Thanks
Gareth Rees MGEOL (HONS) FGS
Environmental Protection officer (Contaminated land and Air quality)
Street Action Team
Note I currently work at North West Leicestershire District Council on Mondays Tuesdays and alternate wednesdays
Council Offices, Whitwick Road,
Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 3 FJ
Direct Line: 01530 454 615
Mobile: 07976 431 236
email: [log in to unmask]
www.nwleics.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: GARETH REES
Sent: 24 November 2014 15:45
To: 'Clive Williams'; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Risk management in perpetuity
All you can do is put the information out there through both covenants and planning controls and enforce if it comes to your attention that a breach has occurred
As has been said before you can't legislate against stupid
You are making your best attempt to protect future users through remedial works and information. There is not option to abandon the public to its own devices after that fact
Thanks
Gareth Rees MGEOL (HONS) FGS
Environmental Protection officer (Contaminated land and Air quality) Street Action Team
Note I currently work at North West Leicestershire District Council on Mondays Tuesdays and alternate wednesdays
Council Offices, Whitwick Road,
Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 3 FJ
Direct Line: 01530 454 615
Mobile: 07976 431 236
email: [log in to unmask]
www.nwleics.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clive Williams
Sent: 24 November 2014 15:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
I think your only option is to refuse development consent as this is the only way you can guarantee that some idiot doesn't dig up the concrete and plant potatos. Flippancy aside there is no way that the control of a brownfield site can be guaranteed in the way you describe "inperpetuity". If that were indeed required surely the site is not suitable for residential development where the use of the site is not managed.
Clive
We’re supporting local business by buying local. Local businesses can register for free at www.buylocalgov.co.uk . Buying local is making it easier, simpler and quicker to do business with North West Leicestershire District Council.
__________________________________________
------- Email confidentiality notice -------
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
Please note: Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with North West Leicestershire District Council's policy on the use of electronic communications.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:21:06 +0000
From: "Jackson, David" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
Hi David,
First of all I am not the originator of this email thread but of the same name so fear not David E Jackson hasn't gone mad and started replying to his own posts...
Secondly good question - I have pondered this myself over the years and have often asked consultants the question " brilliant strategy to mitigate the ground risks...will work a charm on day 1 but what about Year 5, Year 10...?]. Some other more interesting responses have been "well you will have to inspect it under Part 2a if the mitigation measures fail in the future...". I have approved developments with PD rights removed, request for restrictive covenants to go on etc but how effective these mechanism are I don’t know.
For me this all comes back to the risk level of the site. If it marginally elevated heavy metals and I'm worried about a capping breach e.g. someone digging a pond and spreading the contam material on the garden I wont lose any sleep over it due to the conservatism in the risk assessment process and the likelihood of this happening. BUT I do get worried about gassing sites on or adjacent to proposed housing where it will be difficult to ensure that the gas protection measures are carried through into any future extensions of the properties. For this scenario you need to either object to the proposals or pass the risk/decision on to the planners i.e. object unless they remove the PD rights and make it clear that the planning department ensure that suitable conditions go any future extensions [as I currently don’t look at extensions as a consultee and I don’t plan to in the future].
Kind regards
Dave
David Jackson
Land Quality Officer
Wakefield Council
Regeneration & Economic Growth | Environmental Health
Wakefield One | P.O.Box. 700 | Burton Street | Wakefield | WF1 2EB
t 0345 8506506
m 07810 152565
e [log in to unmask]
w www.wakefield.gov.uk/landquality
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David E Jackson
Sent: 24 November 2014 15:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Risk management in perpetuity
Dear All,
Thanks for your latest contributions... but can we try and stay focused here. As I have mentioned twice before the issue here is NOT the effectiveness of the proposed risk management scheme, but rather how one should ensure that these schemes remain effective into the future.
How do we ensure that vents remain open, cover systems are not disturbed, membranes are not punctured etc etc. into the future? Is there any point in installing a 300mm concrete slab if the next occupier promptly digs it up to grow veggies or relying on a vent space beneath a structure if the next occupier blocks it off and uses it for storage, or encapsulate asbestos waste under a car park which the next occupier turns into a planting bed?. And what about the natural degradation of remediation systems by unchecked plant growth, surface erosion or natural changes in groundwater flows or chemistry into the future?
Is it morally (or legally) justifiable to abandon future occupiers to their ignorance (or is that stupidity?). Is that why we (public health professionals) do the job we do? Are we not just saving up work for the next generation of CLOs? just as those in the 1970s appear to have done (at one of my sites at least?).
You might consider such alternative approaches as the US Superfund (apologies but I am no expert) requiring clean up suitable for "all uses”? or whether regulation of remediation schemes could be achieved through a licensing system (such as caravan site) or a waste permit, or even something as basic as the Australian system of mandatory disclosure and memorials on title (Restrictive Covenants?) with criminal sanctions for failure to disclose? Surely as a profession should be aiming a little higher than simply relying on an expectation that an individual will do the right thing. That’s not much of a basis for a sustainable remediation strategy!
As ever your comments (on topic) are enjoyed and appreciated.
David E Jackson
The WMDC Disclaimer can be found at:
http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/SiteInformation/E-MailDisclaimer/default.htm
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com
------------------------------
End of CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Digest - 23 Nov 2014 to 24 Nov 2014 (#2014-10)
**********************************************************************************
___________________________________________________________________________
The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for viruses and other threats; however no technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats. Always exercise caution before acting on the content of an email and before opening attachments or following links contained within the email.
This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding.
The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc. Registered in England No. 1885586. Registered Office Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in the United Kingdom and locations around the world can be found at http://www.atkinsglobal.com/site-services/group-company-registration-details
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
|