Claire Sproats
Scientific
Officer (Contaminated Land)
South Cambridgeshire District
Council
South Cambridgeshire Hall
Cambourne Business
Park
Cambourne
Cambridge
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
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
**************************************************************************************
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 South Cambridgeshire website can be found at http://www.scambs.gov.uk