Print

---

Dear All

Article 18 of the Planning General Development Order (1988) requires Local Planning Authorities to consult the Waste Disposal Authority regarding new developments proposed within a 250m radius of land which is, or at any time in the last 30 years has been, used as landfill. This is normally called the 'methane consultation zone'. The 250m radius figure was then repeated in Waste Management Paper 27.

I'm not sure about the origin of the 250m radius, but it's clearly arbitrary - the actual potential migration distance of landfill gas in the ground is clearly dependant on many factors, not least the geology. 250m in dense clay is very different to 250m in fissured limestone or river gravels.

I have a feeling (but haven't checked) that this consultation radius was intended to be a minimum figure, Local Planning Authorities being free to consult on developments further from any suspect sites as they wish. Also the 30 years period is, in my experience, often not a factor that is considered, with consultation taking place for all sites, including older and even historic landfills.

Clearly in this CLR11 age what we really all should be doing is risk assessing each potential source of gas in its own right and identifying a suitable consultation zone based on available gas data, geological information etc etc. In reality that's going to be a lot of work and require a lot of data that probably doesn't exist in many cases.

I know from personal experience that a certain West London Borough did actually go along these lines, and identified 'variable' consultation zones around each of its 100+ former landfills. The radii of each zone was produced based on careful assessment of monitoring data gathered over a long period and and assessment of surrounding geology. It required buy-in and approval from the Environment Agency, the Local Planning Authority and Building Control Inspectors, and this was eventually obtained.

Clearly a default position of caution is required when there is uncertainty (or simply no data) - but the change of approach was very useful in focussing regulatory (and developer) resources only on those sites that actually warranted it.

If anyone wants to know more let me know.

Steve Moreby
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Environmental Health Department
Gloucester City Council         T   01452 396 312
Herbert Warehouse               F   01452 396 340              
The Docks                       [log in to unmask]
Gloucester,  GL1 2EQ            www.gloucester.gov.uk                  

-----Original Message-----
From: adamc czarnecki [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 October 2006 13:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 250m from Landfill

Dear All,

I have had experience of a site that suffered from landfill gas which
had migrated over 1km from a former quarry which was landfilled in the
1960's. The gas migrated along the former outcrop of worked ironstone
deposits.

Adam

Sarah Dack wrote:
> Well to stick my twopenneth into the discussion..... no 250m doesn't
> work well, once upon a time whilst working for the NRA and dealing with
> landfills from the Humber down to Peterborough we had no migration from
> landfills to at least 500m from a site! 
>
> However there is about to be a CIRIA publication which is dealing with
> ground gas but more the brownfield rather than the landfill aspect.  Its
> title will be 'Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gasses for
> buildings' and I'm assured it'll be out before Xmas - its in its final
> draft I'm told.  It'll also be used to produce LA guidance but that will
> be 2007.  Don't know whether it discusses distances but it re-does the
> characteristic situations in Card & Wilson & CIRIA 149, and recommends
> BH spacing plus freq and length of time for monitoring. 
>
> 'Fraid that's about all I know, but it should solve a few problems
> (assuming it comes out quicker than any CLEA guidance!)
>
> Sarah Dack
> 
> Principal Risk Assessor
> Mouchel Parkman - Ellesmere Port
> 
> T    - 0151 356 5555
> DD - 0151 348 8106
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin
> MacKenzie
> Sent: 25 October 2006 11:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 250m from Landfill
>
> The history for the 250mtr rule was after an incident at Loscoe where a
> house blew up and it was suspected that it was a huge barometric drop in
> pressure which allowed the methane emanating from a source to travel
> very quickly up a permeable gravel layer into a property although the
> geological circumstances are far more complex. After the accident
> investigation, the DoE wrote to every Council in the land and asked them
> for all the properties within 250mtr of landfills within their areas.
> Hence the 250mtr was taken as a literal safe boundary for development
> and protection of buildings.
>
> As I recall there was a contention regarding the source of the methane
> as there were two potential sources, Landfill Gas and Natural methane,
> Coal Gas.
>
> Here is a link to some authoritative history on the incident:
>
> http://www.kabrna.com/cpgs/programme/events_01_02.htm#Derbyshire%20Disas
> ters
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin Mackenzie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Drake,
> Jason
> Sent: 25 October 2006 10:18
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 250m from Landfill
>
> ... and on the flip side of what Ben has noted, there are plenty of
> sites where gas is not migrating at all.
>
> Absolutely agree with Ben about RA, CSM, SI etc - I think the "250m
> theory" is one of the most misunderstood / abused in con land.
>
> By the way - Ben, do you have a reference to the EA's 50m
> recommendation?
>
> Jason.
>
> Jason Drake, City of York Council.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ben
> Crowther
> Sent: 25 October 2006 09:42
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 250m from Landfill
>
>
> EA recomend no development within 50 metres, but I'm aware of gas
> migrating a mile or so - ICI Ellesmere port I think - not methane but...
> in a former sandy transmissable river bed, Its all down to Risk
> Assessment, conceptual models, SI and a lump of luck? (generally bad...)
>
> By the way, anyone go to the CIRIA workshop on landfill gas analysis in
> Glasgow last week?,  Can I get a copy of the notes or (and this is to
> the Former MAPAC Girls and Boys) did you finialise a landfill gas risk
> assessment proocedure for everyone to benifit from?
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Ben 'cat-amongst-the pidgeons' Crowther.
>
> Ben Crowther
> Pollution Control Officer
> Environmental Health Services
> Calderdale MBC
> Northgate House
> Northgate
>
> Halifax
> West Yorkshire
> HX1 1UN
>
> Tel: 01422 392316
>
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Warning
>
> Please note that whilst this e-mail and any attachments originate from
> Calderdale MBC, the views expressed may not necessarily represent the
> views of Calderdale MBC.
>
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.  They
> must not be used by, or copied or disclosed to persons other than the
> intended recipient.  Any liability (in negligence or otherwise) arising
> from any third party acting, or refraining from acting, on any
> information contained in this e-mail is excluded. If you have received
> this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete the e-mail.
>
>
> E-mail can never be 100% secure. Please bear this in mind and carry out
> such virus and other checks, as you consider appropriate.  Calderdale
> MBC accepts no responsibility in this regard.
>
> Copyright of this e-mail and any attachments belongs to Calderdale MBC.
>
> Should you communicate with anyone at Calderdale MBC by e-mail, you
> consent to the Council monitoring and reading any such correspondence.
>
>
>
>  
>>>> Paul Pearse <[log in to unmask]> 23/10/2006 14:31 >>>
>>>>        
> Dear all
>
>
> Seeing that the "250m from a landfill" is an arbitrary and outdated
> concept, I would like to know what people condition about LFG put when
> commenting on planning apps nowadays?
>
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> Paul Pearse
> Environmental Control Officer
> Planning, Protection & Licensing Colchester Borough Council
> PO Box 889, Town Hall Colchester CO1 1FL
> Tel: 01206 282592
> Fx: 01206 282598
>
>
> Help Protect the Environment. Only Print out this email if it is
> absolutely necessary.
> Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Colchester Borough
> Council and or Colchester Borough Homes. This e-mail and any
> attachments, replies and forwarded copies are confidential and are
> strictly for the use of named recipient(s) only. If you have received it
> in error you may not make use of it. Please e-mail us, including a copy
> of the message, to [log in to unmask]
>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> . Then delete the e-mail and any
> copies.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Colchester Borough
> Council and or Colchester Borough Homes. This e-mail and any
> attachments, replies and forwarded copies are confidential and are
> strictly for the use of named recipient(s) only. If you have received it
> in error you are prohibited from distributing, copying, making use of or
> unlawful use of, any information in it.  Please e-mail us, including a
> copy of the message, to [log in to unmask] Then delete the
> e-mail and any copies.
>
>
> Internet email may be susceptible to data corruption, interception and
> unauthorised amendment for which Colchester Borough Council and
> Colchester Borough Homes does not accept liability. Neither is liability
> accepted for any losses caused as a result of computer viruses.
>
> ########################################################################
> #############
> This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
>
> by MailMarshal, the Council's Content Scanner
> ########################################################################
> #############
>
> ########################################################################
> ##############
>
> Warning
>
> Please note that whilst this e-mail and any attachments originate from
> Calderdale MBC,
>
> the views expressed may not necessarily represent the views of
> Calderdale MBC.
>
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
> privileged,
>
> confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.
>
> They must not be used by, or copied or disclosed to persons other than
> the intended recipient.
>
> Any liability (in negligence or otherwise) arising from any third party
> acting, or refraining from acting,
>
> on any information contained in this e-mail is excluded.
>
> If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and
> delete the e-mail.
>
>
> E-mail can never be 100{ secure.}Please bear this in mind and carry out
> such virus and other checks, as you consider appropriate.
>
> Calderdale MBC accepts no responsibility in this regard.
>
> Copyright of this e-mail and any attachments belongs to Calderdale MBC.
>
> Should you communicate with anyone at Calderdale MBC by e-mail, you
> consent to the
>
> Council monitoring and reading any such correspondence.
>
>
> ########################################################################
> ##############
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> This communication is from City of York Council.
>
> The information contained within, and in any attachment(s), is
> confidential and legally privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the
> intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please
> note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this
> communication, or the information within, is strictly prohibited and may
> be unlawful. Equally, you must not disclose all, or part, of its
> contents to any other person.
>
> If you have received this communication in error, please return it
> immediately to the sender, then delete and destroy any copies of it.
>
> City of York Council disclaims any liability for action taken in
> reliance on the content of this communication.
>
>
>
> The information in this email is solely for the intended recipients.
> If you are not an intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy, or
> distribute its contents or use them in any way: please advise the
> sender immediately and delete this email.
>
> Perth & Kinross Council does not warrant that this email or any
> attachments are virus-free and does not accept any liability for any
> loss or damage resulting from any virus infection. Perth & Kinross
> Council may monitor or examine any emails received by its email
> system.
>
> The information contained in this email may not be the views of Perth
> & Kinross Council. It is possible for email to be falsified and the
> sender cannot be held responsible for the integrity of the
> information
> contained in it.
>
> Requests to Perth & Kinross Council under the Freedom of Information
> (Scotland) Act should be directed to the Freedom of Information Team -
> 
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended to be solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain copyright and/or legally privileged information.  If you are not the addressee (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee) please e-mail us at [log in to unmask] and delete the message from your computer; copying, distribution, use or disclosure of its contents is strictly prohibited.

> As Internet communications are capable of data corruption no responsibility is accepted for changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice contained in any e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it.

> In addition, no liability or responsibility is accepted for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any).

> Please note that for business purposes, outgoing and incoming emails from and to the company may be monitored and recorded.

>
> Mouchel Parkman Services Ltd, Registered in England at West Hall, Parvis Road, West Byfleet, Surrey UK KT14 6EZ Registered No : 1686040

>
>