From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Wilson
Sent: 18 October 2016 16:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Questionnaire on the National Quality Mark Scheme for Land Contamination Management

From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Neil Stirling
Sent: 18 October 2016 15:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Questionnaire on the National Quality Mark Scheme for Land Contamination Management

You are totally right which is why the scheme is voluntary.  Therefore it will be up to each local authority to decide if they have the resources then that is fine, whereas we all know there are many LAs that are significantly under resourced and this scheme will hopefully help them prioritise their work.  The aim is ultimately to raise standards and get the reporting right first time.  

Kind regards

Nicola

On 18 October 2016 at 14:32, Clare Horton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I agree with Mark,

the principal of a voluntary NQMS would seem to be a good idea in a situation where there is currently limited knowledge or experience  within the Regulatory body.  However, there are many Local Authorities where such a scheme would be redundant due to the in-house expertise of (many long-term) dedicated Contaminated Land Officers, who have been working to maintain and improve contaminated land management within both the Planning regime and under Part IIA of the Environmental Act.

With Regards,

Clare

-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marc Fawcett
Sent: 18 October 2016 13:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Questionnaire on the National Quality Mark Scheme for Land Contamination Management

I've already expressed my concern over this previously.

In principal I think the QM is a good idea, however the motives driving this change seems to be being overlooked.

If there was ever a potential for disbanding the EA or reducing to a skeleton service this is it. Personally I would prefer the regulators getting more money to do their job to the highest standard.

If I was a regulator I would be very concerned about my future position. Probably not the right discussion forum for politics but I suspect the government will like this idea.... of saving money.

If I was a regulator there is no way I would be diluting my regulatory role.

Its hard enough getting funding for contaminated land regulators currently - with this in place I suspect it will decrease further.

Perhaps I'm being pessimistic but I'd definitely look at the bigger picture?

Best Regards

Marc Fawcett BSc FGS MIAEG
Director

BETTS GEO
Specialists in Geotechnical and Geo Environmental Engineering Old Marsh Farm Barns, Welsh Road, Sealand, Flintshire, CH5 2LY

CHESTER - 01244 288179
ALTRINCHAM - 0161 6131531



[log in to unmask]
www.betts-associates.co.uk

CIVIL | STRUCTURAL | GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL | HYDROLOGY | FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT SUDS | STRUCTURAL SURVEYS | PARTY WALL DUTIES | INFILTRATION | GEOTECHNICAL

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED INFORMATION
This electronic transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely for the addressee. It may contain information which is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not disclose, copy or take any action in reliance of this transmission. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us as soon as possible. All emails transmitted by Betts Associates, Betts Geo or Betts Hydro are virus checked. This does not guarantee that transmissions are virus free. Reference should always be made to the hard copy of any electronically transmitted files. Electronic data does not constitute contract documentation. Use of the content of our files is at your own risk. You remain responsible for anything produced using all or part of the data supplied.