Hmm.. the only suggestion I can offer is that it comes back to you…..  I think you will find migrating  risks can not be dealt with by part B persons..

 

The only suggestion I can make is that you don’t grant planning permission without working out a way to voluntarily deal with the issue.

 

My boss is a EHO lawyer and trained barraster.. and I am sure he could shed more light if you interested but I think you have a basic problem with nuisance in the old fashioned sense of land ownership.

 

Forgette part IIA for a moment and think about the ramifications of building the houses… the risk you are exposing people to originates from land where you are most like the primary type A person.. I think you are well into the legalities of planning.

 

I suggest you might need external help to unpick this.

But a section 106 agreement sounds like the best way forward to deal with the issues.. like a new flare that can be monitored… and 6 months monitoring information and modeling. And it starts to be doable possibly.

At least planners did not just give it permission.

 

 

 

Rob Ivens

So much to read so little time.

01306 879232

 

From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brown, Alex
Sent: 11 April 2007 17:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Landfill flares

 

Dear all,

 

I have a little teaser for you, which is giving me an enormous headache, so any opinions (with any guidance docs) would be very helpful! 

 

Imagine - A planning application is received for a large housing development, next to a former municipal landfill site (operated by the Council prior to the waste management regime). However, the landfill site has a very old flare which is possibly belting out dioxins, furans and carbon monoxide. The nature of the current flare makes it impossible to accurately monitor what's coming out of it, so modelling emissions are difficult / impossible without doing a study in the community (fraught with control problems, cost etc.). 

 

What I can't get my head around is, when you ask the applicant to undertake an SI, would you ask them to consider the off-site flare as a source in the conceptual site model? The applicant has already accepted they will need to install gas protection etc, but there is still a potential risk from ambient air migration off-site. I really don't see the principles of Part IIA being designed for this purpose but I'd be interested to know. If we think the risk is high, the fact they can't remediate ambient air due to an off-site source, do we object? If so, what are your grounds for objection?

 

On a related note, if you were to investigate said landfill site under your strategy, can you determine a site based on the emissions (secondary source) from the flare causing SPOSH?

 

HELP!

 

Regards

---------------------------------------

Alex Brown

Contaminated Land Officer

Rhondda Cynon Taff C.B.C.

---------------------------------------

 

P Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to

    

 


________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________


________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________