A very 'interesting' read, but does it help the situation? Yes and No
It clarifies some issues and we can forget (for the foreseeable future)
any threshold values being issued for SPOSH under Part 2A. Is this a
good or a bad thing? On one hand I can see the benefits of not having
the thresholds (for the reasons stated in the paper), but on the other
why couldn't they be issued for standard land uses - after all,
shouldn't all UK residents have the same standards applied (and then add
any economic considerations after)? We could argue we already don't
with the planning regime and part 2A set at effectively different
targets (one looks at harm, the other significant harm).
The main argument for no SPOSH thresholds is that there isn't the
science to do this - if this is so, how can Local Authorities be asked
to make a determination on a site-by-site basis, particular in the case
of standard land uses? Surely they could come up with a threshold for
which SPOSH needs to be considered? Or is this the SGV (based on
minimal risk)? Or do they not want to as they then set a divide between
new build and existing uses? not politically palatable or morally
acceptable?
The term "non-significant possibility of significant harm" has also
appeared - could be one used an awful lot, in other words, it's above
the SGV's or criteria and could be contaminated but we are unsure if its
a significant risk - shelve it until further understanding or
information comes to light. How would this sit with residents,
conveyancing solicitors etc probably not too well.
The way forward from my point of view is more Government endorsed
scientific tools are required to further refine the site specific
understanding - bioaccessibility, forms of contamination and its
availability to help improve the confidence on contamination - lots of
this is already available but not backed by Government for local
authorities to have the confidence to use them. This should narrow the
'grey area' between what is acceptable and what needs something doing
about it.
The paper also provides a little further guidance on legal issues, and
one the lawyers will be pleased to see. I hope we don't end up with
cases costing more through the courts that the actual costs of
remediation - although hasn't this already happened too? However, it
does provide more confidence to the local authorities on what is within
their remit and should not be challengeable so long as the process has
been followed and the LA have not behaved unreasonably (even though
there could be more than one answer), you will be OK
Anyone any other views - I'm going to take this as a positive step and
hope the remainder of the Way Forward appears sooner rather than later.
Best get on with it then :-)
Regards,
John Naylor
Senior Environmental Protection Officer
Bury M.B.C.
*: 0161 253 6392
*: 0161 253 5563
*: [log in to unmask]
* Environmental Services, Textile Hall, Manchester
Road, Bury BL9 0DG
* www.bury.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of lisa
crews
Sent: 29 July 2008 09:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Guidance on the legal definition of contaminated land
Dear all,
Defra have published 'guidance on the legal definition of
contaminated land', document attached or click here
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/land/contaminated/pdf/legal-definit
ion.pdf> to go to their website.
The Environment Agency's website advises that they aim to
publish the following three document during the week commencing 25th
August 2008:
* the TOX guidance report;
* the CLEA report; and
* the CLEA software and handbook.
With regards,
Lisa
Lisa Crews
Land Quality Policy Officer - trainee
Environmental Protection UK (formerly NSCA)
www.environmental-protection.org.uk
<blocked::http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/> 44 Grand
Parade, Brighton, BN2 9QA Tel: 01273 878 782 Mob: 07525 966 085
Registered Charity no. 221026
Find out about our Green Leaf Campaign
<blocked::http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/support/greenleaf/>
, supporting World Environment Day - 5th June 2008
Environmental Protection UK (formerly NSCA) has been working for
a cleaner, quieter, healthier world since 1898. You can help us continue
to make a lasting difference to the environment by sending us a donation
or shopping online
www.environmental-protection.org.uk/support/raise-money/
<blocked::http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/support/raise-money
/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why not visit our website www.bury.gov.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted
with it is for the intended recipient(s) alone. It may contain
confidential information that is exempt from the disclosure under
English law and may also be covered by legal,professional or other privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any
action in reliance on it.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by using
the reply facility on your e-mail system.
If this message is being transmitted over the Internet, be aware that it may be
intercepted by third parties.
As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this e-mail or any
response to it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless the information
in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act. By responding to this
e-mail you accept that your response may be subject of recording/monitoring to
ensure compliance with the Council's ICT Security Policy.
Electronic service accepted only at [log in to unmask] and on fax number
0161 253 5119 .
*************************************************************
