Folks,
Is there not a possibility that we are overcomplicating this? The 'suitable for use' term is present in both the NPPF and the C4SL documentation, and will be stated in all LPA planning conditions relating to contaminated land.
I very much doubt that a great deal of thought was put into including the word 'safe' in the NPPF and how it might be interpreted by the industry but for an LPA to challenge that the 'suitable for use' referenced in the NPPF is actually different, in terms of risk/contaminant concentrations, to the same statement in the C4SL documentation sounds like an argument that a Planning Inspector will dismiss rather quickly.
Marcus
Marcus Bell
Scientific Officer: Environmental Services
East Cambridgeshire District Council
The Grange, Ely, Cambs, CB7 4EE
TEL: 01353 665555 DD 616463
FAX: 01353 616223
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Taylor, Christopher
Sent: 12 May 2014 08:34
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: C4SL
Dear Paul
If you read paragraph 120 of the NPPF you will see that the responsibility for ensuring safe development rests with the developer, i.e. not with the LPA.
The NPPF specifies that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is responsible for ensuring that:
1. s120 – there are no unacceptable risks related to contamination
2. s121 – the site is suitable for use
3. s121 – after remediation the land should not be capable of being Part 2A land
4. s121 – adequate site investigation by a competent person is presented
So the developer needs to demonstrate the above the 4 elements to the LPA. They need to demonstrate that the risks are not unacceptable, they do not have to demonstrate that it is "safe".
Regards
Christopher Taylor
Enforcement Officer
Regulatory Services
Brent Council
Tel: 020 8937 5159
Fax: 020 8937 5150
www.brent.gov.uk<http://www.brent.gov.uk>
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nathanail [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 09 May 2014 16:59
To: Taylor, Christopher; [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: C4SL
Dear Chris - the nppf requires the developer to ensure the site is safe (para 120) - the reference to Part 2A is only post-remediation (para 121).
Btw it is worth reading the above paras rather than taking my own paraphrase at face value.
Best regards,
Paul
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
-----Original Message-----
From: "Taylor, Christopher" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sender: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 16:22:17
To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>>
Reply-To: "Taylor, Christopher" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: C4SL
Hi Matt
I would argue that as long as the validation makes reference to the fact the new C4SLs were published after the approval of the spec, that should be sufficient.
At the end of the day, all they need to do is demonstrate that there is no unacceptable risk i.e. that the site will not be Part 2A land after remediation. Arsenic below 37 does not sound like Part 2A land to me!
So by discharging the condition you will still be acting in accordance with your responsibility as the Local Authority.
Regards
Christopher Taylor
Enforcement Officer
Regulatory Services
Brent Council
Tel: 020 8937 5159
Fax: 020 8937 5150
www.brent.gov.uk<http://www.brent.gov.uk>
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matt Rhodes
Sent: 09 May 2014 16:01
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: C4SL
Dear List
I'm interested in gauging people's thoughts on the following.
A phase 2 and remediation strategy has been submitted using SGVs/GACs and approved. The validation switches to the new C4SL values, and in the process sidesteps an issue with elevated arsenic in cover soils which are above 32 and below 37.
Should I require that the ph2/3 is reissued taking into account the use of the C4SLs, on an all or nothing approach? Is this reasonable?
Thoughts appreciated
--
The use of Brent Council's e-mail system may be monitored and communications read in order to secure effective operation of the system and other lawful purposes.
--
The use of Brent Council's e-mail system may be monitored and communications read in order to secure effective operation of the system and other lawful purposes.
.
ECDC Private and Confidential Notice The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the named recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you may not copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it. Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the opinions of East Cambridgeshire District Council. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately by using the e-mail address or by telephoning (01353 665555 Ext.6497) Please note that this e-mail has been created in the knowledge that Internet e-mail is not a 100% secure communication medium. We advise that you understand and observe this lack of security when e-mailing us. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure that they are actually virus-free.
