Hi all
Really interesting debate and discussion. Sadly the NPPF uses the pesky word "should" throughout, for example
...after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
I spoke to our planning head, and he has said there is no push from them to avoid pre-commencement conditions entirely. Where considered necessary they will simply request the required agreement from the applicant. If they do not respond then it's tacit agreement anyway.
If they decline the pre-commencement condition(s), they will have the option to withdraw the application and submit the required information, or potentially have the entire application refused. In cases where applications are publicly sensitive and result in lots of objections, the view is they are unlikely to want to do this, as it will require re-consultation giving objectors a second bite at the cherry.
Regards
Phil Mason MSc, MIEnvSc, MCIEH, AMIOA
Environmental Consultant (Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land) – Infrastructure
Urban Vision Partnership Ltd
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES&A=1
|