Steve,
I like the idea of asking for a desk study in principle on every
sensitive end use either as a conditon or submitted with the planning
application and I agree on the general consenus of interpretation of
PPS23
However, looking at the situation in reality I would ask the question,
"what exactky are we excepting as a desk study?". Is it an historical
map search, is at an enviorcheck report (other companies are available
to do this work!!), or is it the all singing all dancing preliminary
risk assessment as advocated by the EA (I have never seen one fully
meeting these requirements). We carry out our own brief desk study on
every sensitive development submitted (historical map search, landfill
search, check our GIS etc), takes about 20 minutes, and I suspect this
information is far more accurate then any information submitted by the
developer.
The point, I am making is that to ask for a desk study appears to be a
duplication of work. I realise the responsibilty to assess contamination
should be the developers. However, whether the developer subimits a desk
study ot not still means we have to carry out our own desk study, either
to check their information or to know what condition to add. I have seen
so called desk studies claim there are no contamination issues when this
is clearly not the case. I would ideally like to either request a full
investigation or acknowledge that no condition or information is
required due to the low possibilty of risk (please note this is not
Salford Policy at this time just an opposing view point)
Also, we are in danger of spending so much time requesting and checking
desk studies that the sites that actually require our attention will be
ignored.
Kind regards
P.S Apologies for any spelling mistakes, I am rushed and it is the
morining and no I didn't use a spell checker!
Mike Williams
Scientific Officer
Environmental Protection
Environmental Health
Turnpike House
631 Eccles New Road
Salford City Council
M5 2SH
0161 737 0551
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Guppy,
Steve
Sent: 19 October 2005 17:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: PPS23 and Residential Developments
A recent informal note from the ODPM regarding land contamination BVPI's
stated in paragraph 43 "A planning application for a sensitive receptor
requires a desk study, according to PPS23, even where the site has not
previously been developed".
I'm currently involved in a rather weighty debate as to how you reach
this conclusion from PPS23. I feel that the document is open to
interpretation and prone to contradiction but have tended to be
over-cautious, taking the opinion recently expressed by the ODPM.
However, my planning department, under pressure from a developer, is
suggesting that we must have some basis as to why we think the land or
the surrounding land may be contaminated before we require a desk study.
I'd be interested to know how other LAs are interpreting and then
applying PPS23. Do you think a sensitive proposal such as a residential
development should be accompanied with a desk study as a matter of
routine and if so do you apply that principle and how (i.e. do you
expect to see it with the application or do you require it by condition
to an approval)?
I'd like to settle this for once and for all so it would be nice to
quote a recognised reference or other respected source that gives a
definitive answer. Any ides out there?
Regards
Stephen Guppy
Senior Scientific Officer
Southampton City Council
* [log in to unmask]
> This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the
intended recipient, please be aware that the unauthorised use or
disclosure of the information it contains, or the unauthorised copying
or re-transmission of the e-mail are strictly prohibited. Such action
may result in legal proceedings. If the e-mail has been sent to you in
error, please accept our apologies, advise the sender as soon as
possible and then delete the message. Under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 / Data Protection Act 1998, the contents of this e-mail,
whether it is marked confidential or otherwise, may be disclosed. No
employee, Councillor or agent is authorised to conclude by e-mail any
binding agreement with another party on behalf of Southampton City
Council. The Council does not accept service by e-mail of court
proceedings, other processes or formal notices of any kind without
specific prior written agreement. E-mails to and from Southampton City
Council may be monitored in accordance with the law.
Protect the environment - only print if absolutely necessary - avoid
wasting paper
DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. As a public body, Salford City Council may be required to disclose this email [or any response to it] under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. For the full disclaimer please access http://www.salford.gov.uk/e-mail. Thank you.
|