In Kent Planners have produced guidance for applicants using the 1APP form.

This validation guidance states:

…..We recommend that a desktop study and walkover survey should be taken for almost every development, even greenfield sites particularly if there have been previous agricultural uses. Sites which have only been used for residential development may have potential contaminants e.g. from domestic heating oil leaks, garages and basements.

However in reality when an application comes in without a desk top study and I request one I am told that it is an unreasonable request and I quote...

'I consider a precautionary principle is adopted simply by considering the potential for contaminated land taking into account the existing use against the proposed use, and in this case, it's residential to residential (or sensitive to sensitive, and indeed one house replacing one house), and therefore I do not consider that a desk study is required. If the proposal were for a sensitive use from any of the land uses listed in Table 2.1 then of course I would suggest a desk study is required'

I don’t understand how this approach can be taken considering what is written in PPS23 the 1APP form and now their own guidance.

James Fox

Scientific Officer

01322 343250

-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 23 July 2008 10:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Planning Conditions

Ours will accept without Desk Studies and then condition as based on my

advice, but only if I can prove there's a definite cause of concern. It

isn't sufficient for them to accept the precautionary principle - I'm just

going to have to be very sazzy with my arguments.

----- Forwarded by Tracy Hilton/AREAMANAGEMENT/RCBC on 23/07/2008 10:03

-----

"Marie Mitchinson"

<MarieMitchinson@chester-le-str To: <[log in to unmask]>,

eet.gov.uk> <[log in to unmask]>

cc:

23/07/2008 10:02 Subject: RE: Planning Conditions

Our Planning are taking the attitude that it is a 'more sensitive' end-use

since you are doubling the number of receptors on-site. They are also

rejecting applications without a desk study and only accepting those that I

approve! Maybe the Planners should be getting their heads together? Seems

to me the CLOs are doing a canny job of it!

Marie Mitchinson

Technical Officer - Non Commercial

0191 3872200

Chester-le-Street District Council

Civic Centre

Newcastle Road

DH3 3QT

www.chester-le-street.gov.uk

-----Original Message-----

From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List

[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of

[log in to unmask]

Sent: 23 July 2008 09:52

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Planning Conditions

Thanks to all who have responded so far - it seems the general consensus is

to push for some form of pre validation upfront to the planning

application. Whether I can convince Planning that this is necessary is

another thing!

One suggestion was that since the precautionary principle approach has been

rejected is to push forward with the argument that the site comprises made

ground due to having previously been occupied by a house.

----- Forwarded by Tracy Hilton/AREAMANAGEMENT/RCBC on 23/07/2008 09:38

-----

|---------+--------------------------------------------->

| | Martin Wright |

| | <[log in to unmask]> |

| | Sent by: Contaminated Land |

| | Management Discussion List |

| | <CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES@JISC|

| | MAIL.AC.UK> |

| | |

| | 22/07/2008 16:50 |

| | Please respond to Martin Wright |

| | |

|---------+--------------------------------------------->

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| To: [log in to unmask]

| cc:

| Subject: Re: Planning Conditions

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

I would not invoke the precautionary principle in this case but instead

rely on the requirement to receive a suitable description /site recce of

the site from elsewhere in PPS23 AND in theone app form.

Its pointed out in the PPS and annex that mapping can only give a partial

view of the site and is generally incapable of identifying natural

contamination, radon issues, made ground or features of the site that would

not have triggered a revised map. Not seeing anything on an old OS map is

not a sufficient description of the site to eliminate a range of possible

issues for planners and building control (though it does reduce the odds).

If your planners are using the national oneapp form then the tick box

approach of that requires an assessment if the use is sensitive even if the

previous use is not contaminative its an OR rather than an AND requirement.

(has anyone ever identified a list of sensitive uses in this context from

central government).

I would certainly push the applicants to demonstrate a basic understanding

of the site. its current and historic setting though not usually require

this be undertaken by an environmental consultant unless there was reason

to suspect something quite significant (such as a soil gas issue).

These small sites frequently take more time due to the handholding required

but it is quite satisfying when you help reveal an issue perhaps the

applicant was not aware of (recent examples include finding an extension

who's proposed strip foundations would have tried to bridged a large pit

of and an old HGV yard disguised within farm outbuildings).

You will probably find your planners requiring photomontages of such sites,

maybe structural surveys of old buildings etc, They don't have much reason

not to enhance that slightly to get enough information for you to decide

whether or not in a particular case you think the issues are significant

enough to refuse, condition or pass an application.

Martin Wright

Scientific Officer

Environmental Protection

Vale Royal Borough Council

Wyvern House

The Drumber

Winsford

Cheshire

CW7 1AH

tel:- 01606 867520

fax:- 01606 867885

(Embedded image moved to file: pic21724.gif)

Tracy_Hilton@REDC

AR-CLEVELAND.GOV.

UK To

Sent by: CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES@JISCMA

Contaminated Land IL.AC.UK

Management cc

Discussion List

<CONTAMINATED-LAN Subject

D-STRATEGIES@JISC Planning Conditions

MAIL.AC.UK>

22/07/2008 14:58

Please respond to

Tracy_Hilton@REDC

AR-CLEVELAND.GOV.

Dear Subscribers,

Following previous debate on the Model Planning Conditions which was very

helpful, I am now faced with a dilemma over the advice I provide to

Planning for single dwellings on sites with no previous history of

potentially contaminative activity. I tried to convince Planning that the

applicant should submit basic Desk Study information to account for the

time lapsed since the last published map and to set the site in its

contemporary setting. I justified this with paragraph 2.27 of Annex 2 of

PPS23 which states that on a precautionary basis the possibility of

contamination should be assumed where considered uses are particularly

sensitive to contamination e.g. housing etc. I also quoted paragraph 2.42

requiring the applicant to submit information to determine whether an

application can proceed due to the proposed use being particularly

vulnerable. Planning came back with the argument that PPS23 paragraph 6

states "the precautionary principle should only be invoked when there is

good reason to believe that harmful effects may occur to human, animal or

plant health, or to the environment."

Thus, if this is how we are to interpret the precautionary principle as

detailed in Annex 2, it appears that Planning are right and it is

acceptable for us to only consult the in-house records and if no

contamination is suspected we can't justify conditioning the application

for a contaminated land survey. On top of this, Planning believe that

there is currently a legal appeal at the High Court based on abuse of the

precautionary principle but unfortunately they haven't managed to find the

details yet. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Kind regards,

Tracy Hilton

Contaminated Land Officer

Tel 01287 612420

_____________________________________________________________________

This message has been checked for all known viruses by the

MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information contact Vale

Royal IS

_____________________________________________________________________

This e-mail and any attachment are sent in confidence for the addressee

only and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient

of this message, you must not disclose, distribute, copy or take any action

in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please

notify the sender immediately. Any views expressed in this message are

those of the individual sender. The views of the author may not necessarily

reflect those from Vale Royal Borough Council.

Vale Royal Borough Council virus scans all inbound and outbound e-mails

(plus any attachments) but does not guarantee such messages to be virus

free. The onus is on the receiving recipients to check they are virus

free.(See attached file: pic21724.gif)