The section 'Detailed Inspection of Particular Areas of Land' states authorities should 'inspect land' to obtain sufficient information to decide whether it is contaminated land, having regard to Section 3 (Risk Assessment) of the Guidance. Para.
3.13 makes reference to Para 5.2 - 5.4.
Para 5.2. '…the local authority is likely to 'inspect land' that it considers……'
I take the term 'inspect land' to mean 'detailed inspection'
If DEFRA wanted written statements for strategic inspections, I'm sure the section on 'Strategic Inspection' would have made this explicit. Having said that, only after a Preliminary Investigation (desk study, site walkover and preliminary risk assessment)
as part of a detailed inspection, could you possibly make a decision that that there is little or no evidence to suggest that it is contaminated land, should that be the conclusion. (caveats etc.)
I'm now confused following DEFRA's comment: 'This therefore makes clear that once a site has been dismissed or determined as low risk, a written statement should be issued to this effect (as per paragraphs 5.2-5.4) regardless of whether this determination
is made as part of the strategic inspection carried out by the local authority or following a more detailed inspection…'
Regards
Damon Pearson
Environmental Protection Officer
Barrow Borough Council
Tel: 01229 876382
Fax: 01229 876411
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 12 July 2012 08:54
Subject: Re: LA Officer opinions wanted....
Dear All,
I think these exchanges have been very interesting. They reveal the sloppy drafting and confusion on the part of Defra.
I think it important to remember that Part IIA is only about statutory "contaminated land" and not contamination in a wider context.
Should this Defra statement really read:
This section recognises that it is never possible to know the exact contamination status of any land with absolute certainty but states that such a lack of certainty should not stop the authority
from deciding that land is not "Contaminated Land" (rather than the "land is not contaminated" in the original.
This may be viable under Part IIA but I would not want to be the person in court defending a decision that "land is not contaminated" without proper justification and caveats regarding probability,
based on present evidence etc. All professionals have a "duty of care". To make a statement ("this is land is not contaminated") knowing that it may not be true, would be a breach of that duty of care and just plain stupid. Think about justifying it to a complainant's
QC, or even the local government Ombudsman.
Regards,
Mike Smith
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
M A Smith Environmental Consultancy
Farthing Hill
Browns Springs
Potten End
BERKHAMSTED
HP4 2SQ
01442-872968
07961-312790
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 11 July 2012 13:41
Subject: Re: LA Officer opinions wanted....
Surely all land gets assessed at some point to decide what gets put through a prioritisation tool and those which are not by virtue of 78B of Part IIA - is a decision not to include land in a prioritisation
a decision that at some level requires justification...you've made the decision that there is no source. If you take DEFRAs standpoint to its absolute limit should you issue written statement to all sites we have decided not to prioritise? - I should point
out that I am playing devils advocate here.
78B Every local authority shall cause its area to be inspected from time to time for the purpose-
a) of identifying contaminated land.
Nathan Pittam
Scientific Officer
Place Directorate (Environment)
Babergh District Council
Tel: 01473 826637
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 11 July 2012 09:08
Subject: LA Officer opinions wanted....
RE: Written Statements - New Statutory Guidance
Hi All,
I have recently submitted a query to the DEFRA con land team as a result of an enquiry. I did not get the answer I was expecting and just wondered what other peoples thoughts were or what their
current/proposed procedures were....
The enquiry was whether we should issue a written statement saying a site was not contaminated (i.e. category 4) whether that conclusion was reached through strategic inspection (including the prioritisation
process) as well as detailed inspection.
We as a council do not currently issue written statements if a site is dismissed as part of the prioritisation process, or if we undertake a desk top study and decide that no further inspection
is required. It would of course be recorded on our system and the information made available if requested. Written statements are obviously issued if we have started detailed/intrusive inspection and told residents we are inspecting their property/area.
The result of the discussion witH DEFRA was that we SHOULD issue a written statement to residents on a site which is dismissed as part of the prioritisation process to reduce property blight.....please
see their direct quote below...
"....Paragraphs 5.2-5.4 set out the procedure once a decision is made that land is not contaminated land under Part 2A. This section makes clear that where an authority has ceased it’s “inspection”
of land on the grounds that there is little or no evidence to suggest that it is contaminated land, and therefore placed in Categories 3 or 4, the authority should issue a written statement to that effect (rather than coming to no formal conclusion) in order
to minimise unwarranted blight to the owners and occupiers of the land. This section recognises that it is never possible to know the exact contamination status of any land with absolute certainty but states that such a lack of certainty should not stop the
authority from deciding that land is not contaminated.
This therefore makes clear that once a site has been dismissed or determined as low risk, a written statement should be issued to this effect (as per paragraphs 5.2-5.4) regardless of whether this
determination is made as part of the strategic inspection carried out by the local authority or following a more detailed inspection..."
I myself see this as an unnecessary step...... particuarly since many people on such sites do not realise they are on a site and this would then create further issues.....as well as obvious resource
implications
DEFRA accept that the guidance may be ambiguous or need clarification if this is not the approach officers are taking from it, so what I would like to know is...
1/ Does anybody already issue written statements for sites dismissed as part of district prioritisation or strategic inspection?
2/ Has anyone implemented (or is planning to implement) such a system as a result of the guidance?
3/ Is it just me that has completely misinterepreted this or do other officers agree with the approach proposed by DEFRA...
4/does the guidance need more clarification?
I may decide to put responses together to go back again to DEFRA, or alternatively just inform our internal discussions on our way forward
Kind regards and looking forward to your responses
Jacqui
Jacqui Dicker
Contaminated Land Officer
Borough of Poole
___________________________
Virus Scanned at Babergh DC
_____________________________________________________________________
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 then
please notify [log in to unmask] then delete it, and note that it is prohibited for you to copy, disclose or otherwise use the message and any files attached to it. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Babergh District Council. Babergh District Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses, although Babergh District Council cannot guarantee that this message has reached you complete
and/or virus free and advises you to undertake your own checks.
