I seem to have opened a bit of a can of worms...
So the Land Forum have written to all of the Local Planning Authorities inviting them to participate in the NQMS. My original question was what exactly does participating involve for the LPA?
There are 2 options for the LPA; either consult the CLO / EA and take the advice given, or they can see the NQMS mark and rubber stamp the report without consultation.
However, the reply to my original question was "where a LA does participate, we would hope that the CLO will provide feedback to the NQMS through the feedback system". So if a participating LPA is still giving their reports to the CLO for review, how exactly are the LPA participating?
Whether I, as a CLO, participate or not is a different matter. I would much rather review a report that has been properly reviewed and audited and if the introduction of the NQMS means that more of the reports I see have been properly produced then I can only welcome the scheme. However, if the scheme is used to circumvent a proper independent review of reports, then I cannot welcome it in any way.
Thanks
_______________________________________________________________________
Matthew Axton
Environment Officer
Environmental Health
Direct dial 01284 757041
Email [log in to unmask]
http://www.westsuffolk.gov.uk
Forest Heath District and St Edmundsbury Borough Councils
Westley Bridge on Newmarket Road, Bury St Edmunds will be closed from 13 February to 7 April. For information visit www.suffolk.gov.uk/westleybridge.
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Jones
Sent: 03 February 2017 13:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL: RE: National Quality Mark Scheme for Land Contamination Management - letter to Chief Planning Officers [Scanned]
Isn't the point that regulators may not subscribe to the scheme but the LPA can, thereby circumnavigating the CLOs? CLOs are not a statutory consultee to the planning process, if the LPA trust a source (i.e. an SQP) then they may well be happy to ignore the CLO? I seem to recall a time when reports were routinely 'rubber stamped' prior to CLOs. One step forward.....?
**********************************************************************************************************************************
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error please contact the Sender.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses and content security threats.
WARNING: Although the Council has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the Council cannot
accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
**********************************************************************************************************************************
-W-S-
|