David

 

Can you qualify what you mean by " Now compare that to the proposed SoBRA scheme. Hmmmm."?

 

As you are not on the SoBRA subgroup looking at developing the scheme, I wonder how you might know what the current proposed SoBRA scheme is and how the general public can compare the Australian system to it?

 

 

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 David E Jackson
Sent: 04 November 2014 12:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ICRCL Standards

 

Dear All

As I am sure you will all be aware, at least those of your who are “competent” (joke!) NPPF places the responsibility for development on the developer - Para 120 "Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner” - not the LA.  Hence, it is not for the LA to be competent - although I’m sure he/she is!!!

 

As to what is competent, I tend to favour an Australian approach, that is, that no single person can realistically possess the expertise in the broad range of skills to be considered singularly competent.  Hence a "competent person" is a person who has access to TEAM of competent people... geoscientists conduct field investigations, soils - soil scientists, hydrogeologists - groundwater, ground gas specialists - ground gas, radiologists - radiation,  chemists - conduct analysis, toxicologists/ecotoxicologists and exposure specialists - conduct risk assessments (and derive C4SL!), remediation  engineers prepare and implement remediation, environmental lawyers interpret the law, planners negotiate the planning, risk communicators convey the results to the public/stakeholders.  Everyone competent in their own field - but not competent in anybody else's field.

 

So what is competent.  My view is that a competent person is some one who knows more about it than I do! 

 

How do you measure that, well referring to the Australian system again (boring!!!) he/she usually hold a degree, often a higher degree/PhD relevant to the competence, has at least 8years experience delivering similar projects or parts of projects relevant to their competence,  to a high standard (i.e. no adverse regulator comments (examples of two recent reports and regulator comments are provided), has a demonstrable program of relevant CPD including a learning plan going forward and insurance of course. 

 

Competence is usually further demonstrated by a series of written submissions (academic style essays on legislation, policy, practice and technical developments in their field of competence) all designed to demonstrate their knowledge and experience in their particular field of competence.  Finally a competent person (lets call then an Auditor for ease) pays an annual subscription of 2000pounds per annum to operate as such.   The scheme has been quite successful in Ausse at weedling out the time-wasters and cowboys and leaves only the people who a qualified, experience, highly regarded amongst their peers, committed, self managed and accountable.   Details are available on various State and Federal web pages under Contaminated Sites Auditors.

 

Now compare that to the proposed SoBRA scheme. Hmmmm.

 

So what are the benefits of such a onerous scheme - firstly the standard of submissions goes up, regulators gain confidence in the reports and competent practitioners and thus subject them to less costly and delaying scrutiny, projects run by competent practitioners are faster, cheaper, more sustainable (in the true sense of the meaning, not the economic-babble that pollies tend to use), the cost of LA goes down, the value of competent persons goes up, fees go up, status goes up, more education/training, more expenditure on flash cars and exotic holidays all contributing to greater economic growth, more taxes, exports etc.  Clients win, LA regulators win, the environment wins, tax man wins and the competent persons win! WIN WIN WIN!

 

So what’s the alternative... wam-bam 1500quid- jobs a goodun!

 

Comments always welcome.

David E Jackson