Since when did the EA they have the right
to refuse planning applications for potentially contaminated land.
--
Adam Czarnecki
Divisional Director
Clancy Consulting Ltd.
2,
Altrincham
WA14 4NX
Tel: 0161 613 6000
Fax: 0161 613 6099
Clancy Consulting Ltd.
Registered Office:
Registered in
We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of
software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as
is necessary before opening any attachment.
The information contained in this message is private and confidential. It is
intended only for the use of the named E-Mail addressee. If you are not the
named E-Mail addressee please E-Mail or telephone us immediately with your confirmation
that you have destroyed it. In no event should you disclose the contents of
this E-Mail to any other person nor copy, use, print, distribute or disseminate
it or any information contained in it. Thank you for your co-operation.
Please visit our website at www.clancy.co.uk
From:
Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sproats Claire
Sent: 24 July 2008 14:28
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: Planning Conditions
We recently held a session with out planning department
giving presentations by myself and a representative from the EA with
regards to the 1App process and the requirement for preliminary risk
assessments to be submitted up front with the application.
This was instigated by the EA who had attended our quarterly
area meeting of CLOs but coincided nicely with the fact that I wanted to hold
such a session to explain some of the guidance relating to planning and
contaminated land. The EA wanted to highlight the fact that they are
taking the approach of refusing applications if they are submitted without
necessary information to allow them to make comment: i.e. the requirement of
preliminary risk assessment as per section 15 of the 1App form, should the
application involve potentially contaminated land and/or sensitive
end use.
It actually went really well and following the presentation/
discussion, I have had an increase in liaison with the planning department in
particular them referring potential applicants to me to discuss the requirement
for information prior to submitting an application.
It seems that showing a united front with the EA helped
reinforce the importance of contaminated land as a material planning
consideration and gave an opportunity to highlight paragraphs from PPS23, of
which some planners were not previously familiar with in any detail.
I highly recommend holding such a session in conjunction
with your local EA Land Contamination / Planning Specialist if you are having
difficulties on the matter of planning conditions, preliminary risk
assessments, or general flow of communication coming from the planning
department to yourself.
Claire
Sproats
Scientific Officer (Contaminated Land)
South
Cambridgeshire District Council
South Cambridgeshire Hall
Cambourne
CB23 6EA
Tel:
01954 713444
Fax: 01954 713248
claire.sproats@scambs.gov.uk
General
enquiries: 08450 450 500
Please consider the environment before printing
this email. Thank You
From:
Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Fox
Sent: 23 July 2008 10:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Planning Conditions
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
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.
Scientific Officer
01322 343250
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:
Sent: 23 July 2008 10:10
To:
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>
<
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
DH3 3QT
www.chester-le-street.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:
Sent: 23 July 2008 09:52
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:
|
| 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
CW7 1AH
tel:- 01606 867520
fax:- 01606 867885
(Embedded image moved to file: pic21724.gif)
Tracy_Hilton@REDC
AR-CLEVELAND.GOV.
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)
|
**************************************************************************************
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.
If you should not have received it, tell me and delete it without forwarding,
copying or disclosing it to anyone. The Council does not represent or warrant
that it or any attached files are free from computer viruses or other defects.
It and any attached files are provided, and may be used, only on the basis
that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence
resulting directly or indirectly from them or their use. Any views or opinions
presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
South Cambridgeshire District Council unless stated otherwise.
All e-mail sent to or from this address will be processed by
South Cambridgeshire District Corporate E-mail system/ Email Archiving system
and may be subject to scrutiny by someone other than the addressee.
This email will also be kept for a set period of time before it is destroyed.
The