 |
 |
It's not double standards. Imagine a bell curve: the upper end is SPOSH, the lower end is minimal risk. The middle is the 'Undiscovered Country' (uncertainty). So, as responsible authorities, if we are here to ensure a development is appropriate for future generations (as Mike Smith put it), where should we be aiming for on this curve? "Just because we have been doing so for years, does that justify why we should continue to do so." The number of years of doing the same thing doesn't justify it. The reasons why we are still doing the same thing does. (Anyone got a venue for that debate?) Dave Fountain Pollution Officer (Contaminated Land) Tel. (01283) 508848 Mobile (07966) 342121 East Staffordshire Borough Council www.eaststaffsbc.gov.uk Follow us on Twitter @ESBCEnvHealth If you are visiting The Maltsters please note that we have limited car parking spaces available. Bays marked ES5, 6, 7 are allocated for our Visitors ONLY. Other ES spaces are strictly for PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. Civil Enforcement Officers patrol this area. If there are no visitor spaces available please park at the Meadowside Leisure Centre Car Park (P&D) -----Original Message----- From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Taylor, Christopher Sent: 13 May 2014 11:49 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: C4SL Of course I am in favour of safe development, who wouldn't be? As a regulator whose role is public health protection, of course I want all soil in all developments to be the best quality possible. BUT, what CAN I demand under Planning? The NPPF is the framework umbrella under which local authorities can set their planning policies. It clearly states what local planning decisions and policies should ensure: 1. To prevent unacceptable risk 2. Ensure a site is suitable for use 3. After remediation, not Part 2A 4. Adequate SI by a competent person Nowhere does it state that planning policies must ensure the development is safe with regard to contamination. Why do we continue to endorse a double-standard system (one for planning, one for Part 2A)? Just because we have been doing so for years, does that justify why we should continue to do so. Land is either contaminated land, as per the definition of Part 2A, or it is not. The risk of exposure is either acceptable or not. We have all heard the example of 2 houses on the same bit of land with the same levels of exposure. One is an old house, deemed to be in Cat 3, so nothing is done. The other is a new development, so we require soil remediation under planning. Common sense dictates that if the soil is good enough for the old house, it should be good enough for the new house, as the levels of risk are the same. I can already hear the arguments "but development present an opportunity to ensure the soil is safe etc", but look at the NPPF. Development presents an opportunity to ensure there are no unacceptable risks. And if the Cat 3 house next door is deemed to not be unacceptable.... At the end of the day, the responsibility for securing safe development rests with the developer. How does a developer demonstrate this? By being as far away from the Cat2/3 boundary as reasonably practicable. What is the best way of having confidence in this? Show your site would fall into Cat 4 of the Part 2A regime. Hence why C4SLs are a useful tool under planning. OK, that's me done. Apologies for clogging up all your inboxes. Perhaps we should organise a public debate instead? Regards Christopher Taylor Enforcement Officer Regulatory Services Brent Council Tel: 020 8937 5159 Fax: 020 8937 5150 www.brent.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Dainton Sent: 13 May 2014 10:54 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: C4SL I'm also with Matt, Martin, Mike and Howard. I'm interested in delivering safe development solutions, not ones that scrape through on the Human Health Cat 2/3 boundary (or even in Cat 3 for that matter). Who wants to buy a new house with a 'tolerable' level of risk. NPPF S120/121: "Safe development", "prevent unacceptable risks", "suitable for use"' "as a minimum.....not Part IIA". It is pretty clear from this language what the NPPF is trying to achieve - and its not just ensuring the site is not Part IIA. And it's really not that hard to deliver a new residential development that presents a minimal risk to human health. For sure lead, arsenic, BaP and vapour intrusion can sometimes be tricky, but there's always a way through: it's what makes being in this business so interesting. Although responsibility of "securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.", it is the planning authority responsibility to use "Planning polices and decisions" to ensure that this is delivered by the developer/landowner. I know 'judgement' is a dirty word (judgement = "should be taken into account", "taking account" and "appropriate for its location" in NPPF language), but sensible solutions and common sense always need to be applied; now where's that elephant. Chris Dainton Peak Environmental Solutions -- 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. This e-mail and files or other data transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying is strictly prohibited and you must not take any action in reliance upon it. Please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of East Staffordshire Borough Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. East Staffordshire Borough Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. East Staffordshire Borough Council does not enter into contracts or contractual obligations via electronic mail, unless otherwise explicitly agreed in advance in writing between parties concerned. The Council believes in being open with its information and the contents of this e-mail and any replies may be released to a third party requesting such information at a future date.