Steve,
When we don't have information about the former land uses for a proposed
residential development that clearly doesn't mean there isn't a hazard
present. I think that sometimes authorities might feel there is such a
low likelihood of finding serious hazards on land without history of
polluting industries that they can't bring themselves to insist on a
desk study. But what about the consequences when occasionally this
leads to serious risks being overlooked?
Local planning authorities are obliged to have regard for 'material
considerations' and to planning policy documents including PPS23. I
haven't seen any departures in national policy that will support and
protect authorities taking a 'real-world' approach, and I haven't seen
any local policies propose this either. As public bodies we're exposed
to questions and risks if we do otherwise than follow policy.
If policy-makers had intended us to make arbitrary 'blind' decisions
about when not to require desk studies they would have stated this in
national policy. They didn't. Instead they placed the burden on the
developer and we have to assume this reflects an acceptance that paying
for a desk study is not an unreasonable burden on them. It's the place
of trade lobbies, not local authorities, to challenge such a policy in
terms of the developer's obligations.
Who are we serving if we take the burden of responsibility away from the
developer and onto ourselves?
When we find planners who are reluctant to follow our advice, all we can
do is attempt to persuade them and then the risk is down to them. With
a bit of corporate awareness-raising and some local 'Supplementary
Planning Guidance' (SPG) reflecting PPS23, hopefully we can overcome
their doubts and secure some consistency.
The only question in my mind is about infill single dwelling
developments and extensions. In both cases I've found 1960s/70s/80s
developments lacking original remediation or where landfill gas
protection measures were originally provided but this fact has been
overlooked for the new additional development. I've heard of a case
where the landfill gas entering a new extension was enough to keep the
flame of the builder's blowtorch going when he turned his gas off.
On the point about auditing all these extra desk studies - if they were
consistently asked for they would improve in quality and we wouldn't
have to waste so much time critising them. We shouldn't accept planning
applications without them and should be prepared to reject, reject,
reject! This is where a local SPG comes in handy.
Regards and apologies for a long reply but you've raised an important
point,
Nick Howard
EP Manager
Lancaster City Council
-----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
UK businesses use up 2 million tonnes of paper each year.Think before you print this email - do you really need to? Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus, or any other defect which might affect any computer or IT system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Lancaster City Council for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use thereof.
Furthermore the views contained in this e-mail are those of the originator. Unless they state otherwise they are not the views or opinions of the Council.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scanned by Information Services for all known Viruses.
|