Recommend refusal? Catherine Davey Direct Line : + 44 (0)1483 734234 Mobile : + 44 (0)7887 713519 Stevens & Bolton LLP, The Billings, Guildford GU1 4YD Tel: +44 (0)1483 302264 Fax: +44 (0)1483 302254 DX 2423 Guildford 1 www.stevens-bolton.co.uk <http://www.stevens-bolton.co.uk/> Corporate Law Firm of the Year Insider South East Dealmakers Awards 2007 Stevens & Bolton LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England (registered number OC306955) and is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of members' names is open to inspection at the above address. IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the addressee of this e-mail please reply to the sender immediately by e-mail and do not disclose, store or make use of this information. Communicating by e-mail carries certain risks which include delay, corruption of data, non-delivery, wrongful interception, amendment and other dangers. Please refer to our internet site http://www.stevens-bolton.co.uk/email <http://www.stevens-bolton.co.uk/email> if you would like more information on this issue. However if you communicate with us by e-mail we will take it that you have assumed the risks involved in using such a medium. ________________________________ From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam Czarnecki Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:06 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Planning Conditions Since when did the EA they have the right to refuse planning applications for potentially contaminated land. -- Adam Czarnecki Divisional Director Clancy Consulting Ltd. Dunham Court 2, Dunham Road Altrincham Cheshire WA14 4NX Tel: 0161 613 6000 Fax: 0161 613 6099 Clancy Consulting Ltd. Registered Office: 2 Dunham Road, Altrincham, Cheshire, WA14 4NX Registered in England No: 3693529 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 Business Park Cambourne Cambridge CB23 6EA Tel: 01954 713444 Fax: 01954 713248 [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 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 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. UK 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) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Dartford Borough Council. Dartford Borough Council - Rated a good Council by the Audit Commission. See www.dartford.gov.uk to find out more. ************************************************************************ ************** 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 <http://www.scambs.gov.uk/>