 |
 |
I have produced our BVPI for contaminated land and concern has been raised by management as it is quite low (3.3% approx). I would be interested to know what other LAs have been achieving for their BVPIs? Our BVPI was calculated as follows: 1. I used a baseline figure from April 05. 1003 2. Then calculated the number of sites where there is sufficient information to decide whether remediation is or is not necessary from planning and Part IIA routes. 3. Then 33/1003 = 3.3% One problem that I have encountered is that we have been made aware of more than 33 potentially contaminated sites that were previously not on our Part IIA list (through planning and complaints). This meaning that the BVPI for number of sites of potential concern for next year will increase. So our other BVPI for next year, if we deal with a similar number of sites will drop slightly (3.1% I guess). Have any other Local Authorities experienced a similar situation? Also I was wondering how the BVPIs will be assessed as there are no targets. I seem to recall that the first BVPI should decrease and the second increase thus illustrating that the LA is reducing the amount of potentially contaminated sites in its district. Is this correct? Many thanks for all of your advice with my previous query on placing determinations on a public register. ********************************************************************** The information contained in this transmission may be confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of any part of this transmission is unauthorised. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the originator immediately. www.southoxon.gov.uk ********************************************************************** PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE BY ONLY PRINTING THIS EMAIL IF IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.