 |
 |
Marie thanks for the quote I will now use it to bash consultants with (no offence to any good consultants, ok Sarah!!) oh and your argument to developers is pure genius. It does say 'should' be required and in the constant battle to improve standards I have noticed 'should' often means isn’t especially in reports initially submitted in order to discharge conditions. I am back tracking a little on my previous hard-line stance in order to allow for the small scale developers, conservatories and small scale changes of use and once again my argument relies on pragmatism. My counter argument is and perhaps a compromise; “LPAs should require the applicant to provide with the application such information as is necessary to determine whether the proposed development can proceed.” (PPS23 annex 2, 2004) A desk top study is carried out before a site reconnaissance. If enough information is gathered at this stage clearly there is no need to carry out a walk over survey which may add additional cost. I believe £1500 is a little high for the low level conservatories, small scale changes of use or one man bands building a single dwelling. Henry Land previously suggested £200 for a good enviro-search surly interpretation of this with a geological summary and conceptual model would be far cheaper and could provide sufficient information to base a preliminary risk assessment on? If this type of desktop doesn’t suffice then the LA could require a site reconnaissance. This is all based on the process working as detailed in PPS23