 |
 |
In many instances the CLO is more competent and provides better advice than the consultants producing Phase 1 reports! Steve Wilson, Technical Director The Environmental Protection Group Ltd Tel 07971 277869 www.epg-ltd.co.uk<http://www.epg-ltd.co.uk/> Disclaimer: Information contained in this e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee only and is confidential and may contain commercially sensitive material. Any dissemination, copying or other use of this communication, other than for which it is explicitly intended, without the permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Whilst all e-mails are screened for know viruses, the Company cannot accept responsibility for any which may have been transmitted. From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ferady, Deborah Sent: 15 March 2017 11:15 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Small-scale developments Dear Danielle, I completely agree with what David has just said in that I also consider a CLO to be a competent person and follow the exact same approach when reviewing planning applications. Where I believe there is justification for the contaminated land conditions to be placed on an application I would expect to see a full Phase 1 Desk Study and if required Phase 2 Site Investigation and Validation Report to be completed by a competent environmental consultant in order to discharge the condition(s). A questionnaire completed by the developer may give some useful background information on a site but I would not accept this information alone to discharge a condition(s) for the reasons you have highlighted. Kind Regards Debbie Debbie Ferady Senior Environmental Health Technical Officer Aylesbury Vale District Council The Gateway Gatehouse Road Aylesbury HP19 8FF Tel: 01296 585621 Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Visit our website: www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk<http://www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/> [myaccount_emailbanner]<http://www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/myaccount> From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jackson, David Sent: 15 March 2017 10:59 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Small-scale developments Hi James/Danielle, I’m generally against requesting reports for sites where there is no known industrial/agricultural previous use or nearby potential ground gas sources. If I required reports for all these developments I would have to spend all my time reading them where the result of a good phase I should inevitably be no SI required for contam/gas etc. (unless the developer has gone cheap and appointed a loss leader Phase I that for some reason always seem to recommend an SI). I don’t consider this the best use of my time. I triage/vet planning apps against the LA’s potentially con land sites, landfills, radon etc. layers and decide on the need or not for conditions. I can mentally write the Phase I in my head for most sites within 5 mins. So in answer to James question – Yes I do consider CLO competent persons to make the above call on smaller sites with no known previous industrial/agri use. (Although I have no idea how I would prove I am competent!!). I accept that I am probably in the minority of my peers on this one.. Kind regards Dave David Jackson Land Quality Officer Wakefield Council Regeneration & Economic Growth | Environmental Health Wakefield One | P.O Box 700 | Burton Street | Wakefield | WF1 2EB t 0345 8506506 [Contact Centre] m 07810152565 e [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> w www.wakefield.gov.uk/landquality<http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/landquality> From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Nelson Sent: 14 March 2017 5:39 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Small-scale developments Hi Danielle Could a contaminated land officer (CLO) be classed as a competent person? For small (low risk sites) would the CLO advising the planners be sufficient? Just some thoughts. Best regards James D Nelson BSc MSc CSci CChem FRSC SiLC Associate Discovery CE Limited The Granary Broadwell House Farm Broadwell Warwickshire CV23 8HF Tel 01926 813909 Mob: 07974 910931 Web: www.dce-services.co.uk<http://www.dce-services.co.uk/> On 14 March 2017 at 13:50, Danielle Newnham <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Under Planning, does anyone else accept the submission of information direct from the developer/applicant to enable the discharge of conditions? We have a questionnaire template which we used to allow applicants to complete for small-scale sites (e.g. replacement dwellings, back garden developments). The purpose of this was to avoid the need for a full contaminated land investigation on small-scale sites and so keeping the costs down for the developer. The questionnaire asks for a brief site history, any on-site waste disposal, asbestos etc. In accordance with the NPPF, it is my understanding that all assessments must be undertaken by a competent person (e.g. consultant). In my view, I put the condition on to ensure that a proper risk assessment is undertaken. Personally, I dont see any value in the questionnaire approach - the author would not be deemed a competent person under the NPPF and they arent about to reveal information which would result in more cost/work anyway. Plus if I condition the application because of a nearby potentially contaminative use, then the questionnaire won't adequately address this. I've withdrawn it, to the horror of many a back garden developer! Just wanted to see if anyone else was of the same/differing opinion Thanks very much Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/cb2Ka+sC+CTGX2PQPOmvUn24ZckLd!CJCGcUm04RNNLfTUIMnVQGY9k1dk7Efw+TMjfmQweYrO8hR!AbTPK7tQ==> to report this email as spam. ________________________________ The WMDC Disclaimer can be found at: http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/site/terms-and-conditions [Image removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/AylesburyVale> [Image removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/aylesburyvale> [Image removed by sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/aylesbury-vale-district-council> This email and any attachments are strictly confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain information which is privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, forward, copy, print or take any action in reliance of this email or any attachments. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible and note that confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost. The views expressed within this message are those of the individual sender and not necessarily those of Aylesbury Vale District Council. The anti-virus software used by Aylesbury Vale District Council is updated regularly in an effort to minimise the possibility of viruses infecting our systems. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.