With respect, again I think it`s a matter of context; but for N(8), a LPA faced with a qualifying application which would have resulted in `contaminated land` would have had no choice but to give a Certificate of Lawful Development and to fall back, once the development had been completed, on Pt2A. Not being in anyone`s true interest, N(8)(c)`s nod to Pt2A merely throws such applications into the full planning process. It doesn`t, to my mind, say anything about where the planning process generally draws a line, in particular where the application as a whole must still be treated 'N(8)(b) [with]regard to the NPPF....as if [it] were a planning application'. The consequence of that is that, notwithstanding exemption from the need for PP for the change of use, it remains the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that the development will be 'safe' and 'suitable for use' and para N(7) provides LPAs with the power to compel that demonstration.

Howard Price

Principal Policy Officer, CIEH

From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Taylor, Christopher
Sent: 15 May 2014 10:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: C4SL

Yes, that is the point I have been trying to make on this forum.

Plus I would like to draw everyone’s attention to the Permitted Development Rights, where contamination is one of the three aspects that require prior approval (along with highways and flooding) for a change of use to residential.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013

N (8) The local planning authority shall, when determining an application

(i) determine whether, as a result of the proposed change of use, taking into account any proposed mitigation, the site will be contaminated land as

described in Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990(a), and in doing so have regard to the Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance issued by

Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in April 2012, and

(ii) if they determine that the site will be contaminated land, refuse to give prior approval

So from this we can clearly see where Planning draw the line. This also backs up the argument that the role of Planning is to remove unacceptable risk from a site (i.e. once a site is developed it should not be Part 2A land) and not to ensure a site is remediated to somewhere near the bottom of category 4.

Regards

Christopher Taylor

Enforcement Officer

Regulatory Services

Brent Council

Tel: 020 8937 5159

Fax: 020 8937 5150

www.brent.gov.uk

From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gareth Rees
Sent: 15 May 2014 08:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: C4SL

That was kind of my point

In my opinion SGV/GAC's are/were taken to be broadly inline with ALARP taking bioaccessabilitly, natural background etc into account.

The main issue is could a regulator stand infront of a planning inspector and successfully argue that the remedial targets should be broadly inline with sgv/gac values i.e. ALARP not C4SL values when the only policy is para121 of the NPPF which merely says as a minimum not PART IIA.

I’m Pretty sure everyone agrees that the C4SL's are defiantly not part IIa and there is in theory a pretty wide gap between them and the CAT 3/2 boundary so they more than meet the "as a minimum" test on the day you are putting a case to a planning inspector.

I’m fairly sure that a planning inspector would side with the developer on that argument

You couldn’t even condition the use of SGV/GAC values over c4sl values as (with a developers hat on) I would argue it does not meet the reasonable test from Circular 11/95 and is therefore "ultra vires on the grounds of unreasonableness"

I cant see any general ground on which a regulator could refuse the use of C4SL values (obviously that doesn’t take site specific concerns into account) but as nick merriman pointed out that’s doesn’t mean in 10 years the values wont be revised to half what they are now (look at Lead) and then we may have to look at a site under Part IIa

Thanks

Gareth Rees Mgeol (HONS) FGS

Contaminated Land Officer

E mail: [log in to unmask]

Mobile: 07976 431 236

Contact Centre: 01858 82 82 82

Fax: 01858 82 10 00

DX DX 27317 Market Harborough

Please Note I only work for Harborough District Council on Thursdays Fridays and alternate Wednesdays

-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Howard Price
Sent: 15 May 2014 08:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: C4SL

And I thought, until recently, there had been a fair consensus about this; there are, of course, reasonable limits to risk management but perhaps 'minimal risk' is a poor description - it isn't infinitessimal risk nor, especially, as Defra sought to disparage it, does it mean 'digging up the whole of Cornwall'.

Howard Price

Principal Policy Officer, CIEH

-----Original Message-----

From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gareth Rees

Sent: 14 May 2014 16:09

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: C4SL

I suppose that’s why we should really apply the principle of As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) when setting remedial targets as apposed to as high as we might be able to get away with (i.e. C4SL's)

Thanks

Gareth Rees Mgeol (HONS) FGS

Contaminated Land Officer

E mail: [log in to unmask]

Mobile: 07976 431 236

Contact Centre: 01858 82 82 82

Fax: 01858 82 10 00

DX DX 27317 Market Harborough

Please Note I only work for Harborough District Council on Thursdays Fridays and alternate Wednesdays

-----Original Message-----

From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]

Sent: 14 May 2014 15:44

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: C4SL

Hi,

There was an interesting case in Texas US where a superfund site had been remediated (lead contamination from an old lead smelter) and fully declared as remediated and taken off the superfund list of sites.

The tox values for lead were subsequently changed a few years later by a factor of 10 times more precautionary and the site was then again declared a superfund site. Cleanup then started all over again. I seem to remember that for the second time the site was declared a state emergency. Needless to say the locals got pretty upset.

I do not

think there is any way you can ever ensure that a site declared as “not contaminated” will always remain so as our knowledge changes over time.

There always will be a risk of things changing and that is what developers and buyers have to bear in mind.

nick

Nick Merriman MSc

MRICS MIQ Mineral Valuer, Valuation Office Agency, Regent Court, 14 –

17 George Road, Birmingham, B15 1NU 01684 893 140 Tel 0771 347 0580 Mob [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----

From:

Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:CONTAMINATED-LAND- [log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Clive Williams

Sent: 14 May 2014

11:32

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: C4SL

Just to throw more wood onto this slow burner, reading the latest CIRIA Asbestos report and in the section on planning, development control and EPA 1990 there is this:

"It is appropriate that the

planning process adopt a more stringent standard for the levels of soil contamination than are relevant under Part 2A. This prevents developments being determined as ‘contaminated land’ in the future when, and if, acceptable exposures to contaminants change."

I can see

the sense in this approach, but where do you stop?

Clive

You can contact the Council through the website www.harborough.gov.uk, via email [log in to unmask] or by telephone on 01858 828282.

Harborough District Council

The Symington Building

Adam and Eve Street

Market Harborough

Leicestershire

LE16 7AG

Map of Council Offices:

http://www.harborough.gov.uk/site/scripts/location.php

Website: http://www.harborough.gov.uk

Customer Services e-mail: [log in to unmask]

Contact Centre: 01858 82 82 82

Text Messages: 07797 87 82 82

DX 27317 Market Harborough

Notes for E Mail Users

http://www.harborough.gov.uk/site/scripts/services_info.php?serviceID=540

www.harborough.gov.uk/ccc_form

Harborough District Council		www.harborough.gov.uk
The Symington Building		E mail: [log in to unmask]
Adam and Eve Street		Contact Centre: 01858 82 82 82
Market Harborough		Text Messages: 07797 87 82 82
Leicestershire		DX 27317 Market Harborough
LE16 7AG		Follow Us On Twitter @HarboroughDC
Map of Council Offices

Notes For Email Users

Compliments, Comments and Complaints

--
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.