 |
 |
Same here. Kind regards Ruth Ruth Willcox Environmental Protection Officer Environmental Services Plymouth City Council Civic Centre Plymouth PL1 2AA T +441752304154 E [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> www.plymouth.gov.uk<http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/> From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jackson, David Sent: 21 March 2014 16:56 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Category 4 Screening Levels Hi All Lets face it the text from Defra will more than likely be vague on the use of the C4SL’s in the planning regime as they wont want to make a decision that may have any legal implications when its far easier to pass the decision/risk on to Local Authorities with their one CLO [if lucky] and small legal team. Ok moan over…but what industry still needs is consistency on this matter which will only come from a policy decision which would have to come from each LA or better still from the regional CLOG if central government are not willing to make it. Harmonisation across regions may though be difficult with some CLO’s being confident/able to make a policy decision and some LA’s needing committee approval. Personally I think the C4SL’s probably just qualify for use under planning in terms of the terminology in the NPPF. Any developers crazy enough to try remediate or accept risks in Cat 3 though will have a fight on their hands in this LA…you have to draw the line somewhere! [excuse the pun]. Right I’m off down the offy for some real ales. Regards Dave David Jackson Land Quality Officer Wakefield Council Regeneration & Economic Growth | Environmental Health Wakefield One | P.O.Box. 700 | Burton Street | Wakefield | WF1 2EB t 01924 306924 e [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> w www.wakefield.gov.uk/landquality<http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/landquality> -----Original Message----- From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Thornton Sent: 21 March 2014 15:36 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Category 4 Screening Levels The C4Sls are purportedly 'pragmatic' but still 'strongly precautionary' (i.e. they are C4 screening levels (not C3-C2) The question for debate will be whether some of the likely assumptions (for example increasing the acceptable lifetime excess cancer risk) to generate 'low levels of toxicological concern' rather than 'minimal risk levels' is acceptable? A government policy statement is therefore essential Regards Karen Thornton Specialist Environmental Engineer BSc (Hons), FGS, MCIWEM, C.WEM NHBC Technical services department. -----Original Message----- From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nathan Pittam Sent: 21 March 2014 15:27 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Category 4 Screening Levels But this comes back to one of the fundamental questions with the new NPPF etc....does the fact that a site is not sufficiently contaminated to be determined as "Contaminated Land" mean that is is suitable for proposed future uses - Remove the S from SPOSH and you get a Possibility of Significant Harm which in itself (without the 'significant') is not going to be "Contaminated Land" and by virtue of the statements in the NPPF any development with meets POSH but not SPOSH should therefore be permitted - at the very least this is the argument that we are going to get from planners and those driving developments. This email is confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, please delete the email and do not use it in any way. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. NHBC reserves the right to monitor all email communications. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. NHBC, the National House-Building Council, is limited by guarantee in England, No 320784. Registered address: NHBC House, Davy Avenue, Knowlhill, Milton Keynes MK5 8FP. NHBC is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority. NHBC Building Control Services Ltd, registered by guarantee in England with Company No. 01952969. Registered address: NHBC House, Davy Avenue, Knowlhill, Milton Keynes MK5 8FP. NHBC Services Ltd registered by guarantee in England, No 03067703. Registered address: NHBC House, Davy Avenue, Knowlhill, Milton Keynes MK5 8FP. If you make a claim under a Buildmark policy your personal details will be stored and processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act. Your personal details may be passed to others involved with your claim such as the original builder, or a consultant or remedial works contractor that we may employ in connection with your claim(s) and matter ancillary to your claim(s). Other than disclosure provided for in this statement, we will not pass any data about you to any other party without your permission unless we are required to do so by law. ________________________________ The WMDC Disclaimer can be found at: http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/SiteInformation/E-MailDisclaimer/default.htm This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com<http://www.surfcontrol.com/> ******************************************************************************************************************************************** IMPORTANT: This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential or sensitive information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it to any other person or take any action in reliance. If you have received it in error, please notify your system manager and the sender as soon as possible and then delete it from your system.