As a consultant, one issue I have encountered is the wide variability in
the approach to accepting assessment criteria and clean-up thresholds
accepted by EHO's. At one end of the scale I have encountered ICRCL
values (albeit not named as sutch), Dutch intervention values and "out
of the air values" (often for TPH) being accepted e.g. a blanket 50mg/kg
for PAH in one recent example. At the top end, EHO's are requesting
proper DQRA based on sound Conceptual Site Models whilst taking a
considered but reasonable approach to remediation techniques that
address the linkages identified.
There does appear to be a bit of 'postcode lottery' as to what
thresholds may be acceptable for site assessment & remediation.
Hopefully the imminent release of CLEA UK will help everyone...
Duncan
Duncan Fairwood
Senior Geo-Environmental Consultant
BAE Systems Environmental
Brisance House
Euxton Lane
Chorley
PR7 6AQ
01257 242264 / 242000
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Parr
Sent: 21 October 2005 13:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PPS23 and Residential Developments
*** WARNING ***
This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an
external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
We seem to only have CLO's commenting on this; I would be interested to
hear consultants/contractors/developers/academia's take on the
discussion and what they see as being the major problems with assessing
land contamination through Planning!
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy McClements [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 21 October 2005 13:03
To: 'Jonathan Parr'
Subject: RE: PPS23 and Residential Developments
Well Guy's & Lassie's,
This has been one of the most interesting topics of conversation that
this Forum has had in a long time.
For what it's worth we've had the same discussion concerning these
issues in the North of Scotland prior to the commencement of the
Landfill Directive and to be honest didn't really resolve them then.
The bottom line is that it's the developers responsibility to satisfy
the planning authority that the site is suitable (& safe) to be
developed. The issue of requiring a DS & or SI prior to a planning
application or required through a condition is local authority specific
in Scotland.
However, the issue of screening levels (Maryland, Dutch/USEPA, etc.) is
a real hot potato - especially if you consider the SGV Task Force recent
briefing note (CLAN 2/05). If the SVG's do not satisfy the legal test
for "significant harm" what does? Without undertaking a site specific
DQRA I cannot see how any developer can satisfy themselves of this
issue.
Obviously this IS NOT going to happen especially if you consider
economies of scale, the reasonableness test & any associated
cost/benefit analysis.
A pragmatic approach must be taken by not only the developer but the
enforcing authorities as well. Is it not the case that the use of
screening tools such as SGV's , Maryland values, Dutch, USEPA, etc.,
must be assessed & justified on their individual merits, within a site
specific framework.
What else can we/they do? are we going to get every developer that has
to undertake a SI to generate their own values for the contaminants of
concern they encounter? - Don't think so some how.
Uncertainty wonders casually through almost very aspect of the Part 2A
regime, there are a myriad of grey areas that as CLO's we have to make
professional judgements on that could in the future affect people's
lives.
It's a thankful task at the best of times but it is a task I personally
relish. Its important to keep on talking, but as Jonathan rightly
points out - make sure you are heard. Not sure how you Regionally deal
with these issues, but perhaps it might be an idea to set up Regional
contaminated land working groups, perhaps the CIEH would be interested
in organising these events etc. Just a thought!!!
Kind regards as always.
Andy
Andy McClements
Senior Environmental Health Officer
Department of Sustainable Communities
Sandwick Road
Stornoway
Isle of Lewis
HS1 2BW
Western Isles
Tel: 01851 709492
Fax: 01851 709287
email address: [log in to unmask]
It has to be remembered that the whole point of planning control is to
ensure that the developed site falls outwith the Part 2A regime.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Parr [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 21 October 2005 11:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PPS23 and Residential Developments
But surely the only way to make ourselves heard is to shout form the
rooftops!
I do think we undervalue our opnions and power (we do after all drive
Part IIA and try our damndest to improve quality of work in our areas),
and maybe we should all (that is all 400+ of us!) should bulk email ODPM
with our concerns, our issues and what we think needs doing.
Now im not saying its possible, but one email sent by someone from the
list and supported by every CLO in the UK should at least make them sit
up and pay attention. The Planning Inspector is up to them to sort
out!!!
Look, I know I live in a hypothetical dream world sometimes; as Steve
says the Standing Conference is very busily and successfully lobbying on
our behalf; but maybe its time we added our voice as a majority to this
lobbying and began to make people listen to us as we all have the same
concerns!!!
We all know that stopping kids shooting up with smack and supporting
single parent families (all worthy causes I may add) take precedence
with every LA in the country; and apart from some of the more proactive
Council's out there (usually those in large conurbations) land
contamination isn't seen as important. What we need to do as a body
politic is begin to make everyone aware of how important this issue is
and even more, how important getting it assessed correctly is! Would
you want your health checked by a fully qualified doctor or by some
bloke who is a mate of a mate?! (unless of course he is a fully
qualified Doctor!!!) Whilst SILC status aims to achieve this, and is
excellent and I hope to one day achieve it for myself; it doesn't do
anything to stop the awful work we see being handed in by the smaller
Consultancies and the lack of knowledge and appreciation of the issues
by, probably, the majority of Developers. One example I have is of a
Consultant assuring his Client PAH's were not an issue as they were only
phytotoxins! Quite apart from the fact anything can be toxic to humans
(too much H20, air, pie's!) this Consultant was quite serious in what he
said; I mean come on!!!
And another issue I have come across is Developers handing in
preliminary SI work and a GQRA using Dutch/USEPA as screening levels to
fulfil a planning condition on a contaminated site that needs a DQRA!
Now I dont want to tar all small consultancies and developers with the
same brush as there are some excellent ones out there who are striving
to improve, but we al know it goes on and it needs to be stopped!
At the core of the work we do; first and foremost is Public Protection,
and that is how we should approach the job. If a developer doesn't like
the approach and decides to do a development somewhere else where the
Planning Policy isn't so rigidly stuck too, then the only person who
gains is the developer with his profit margins; certainly not the people
who live in the development that blows up!!! To me what this calls for
is a countrywide adoption of a policy that all us CLO's can put to DC
and say this is how it is/should/will be done across the UK; if not the
liability lies with you!
And I know I bang on about liability but I have worked in LA's for too
long and seen too much to not have learnt that one of the most important
things is covering my own back!!!
Anyway; at the end of the day I am up for the challenge; is anyone
else?!
Rant over lol!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Guppy, Steve [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 21 October 2005 11:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PPS23 and Residential Developments
This forum and my thread have demonstrated once again that this might
often feel like a lonely task, but there's plenty of others out there
dealing with the same old problems every day.
The general consensus is that we should require a desk-study with all
new residential developments. Pragmatism has lost to fear of liability
and that would seem a sensible result if your heads on the block. Many,
of you, including myself have probably experienced sites with
significant contamination issues which were only brought to light by a
good desk-study.
In most cases a desk-study I had to fight for too. However, planners do
seem generally reluctant to take this approach for whatever reason, and
I think we have a responsibility to raise awareness and ensure that
workable,
PPS23 compliant policies are adopted at local level. This is not just
training at planninjg officer level but suitable briefings to the
mangers/directors responsible for making the decisions and allocating
sufficient resource. Lets not forget the spirit of the guidance; it's
there to promote environmental improvement not an epidemic of sloppy
shoulder syndrome. The planners rely on the opinion of the inspectorate
who will apply the usual planning condition tests of reasonable,
necessary etc under the circular and in my experience this means they
expect a desk-study only where contamination is already suspected. An
approach not generally supported by those writing to this thread (and
apparently not in the spirit of PPS23). So, if we want to make our
planners more aware someone needs to approach the inspectorate as well?
Something beyond our remit.
A few of you indicated that the wholesale application of such a
condition could not be managed within their office. I do sympathise.
The phase II's currently sitting in my in-tray are probably sufficient
to balance the city's carbon dioxide emissions! But if the desk study's
weren't so poor we
wouldn't have to spend hours holding developers hands. PPS23 clearly
indicates what is required of a desk-study. Awareness amongst developers
and those that supply information is required and without the support of
our planners that's a thankless task.
I'm not trying to make the situation sound all doom and gloom. I'm sure
the situation can be improved and those out there with an opinion can
help.
Should we not be asking for additional guidance for PPS23, a national
training/awareness programme for planners and the inspectorate and an
industry standard for e-reports? Something that the standing conference
might want to add to their already packed schedule.
Regards
Stephen Guppy
Senior Scientific Officer
Environmental Services
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 Email Disclaimer is:
http://www.blackpool.gov.uk/EmailDisclaimer/
This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft
Exchange as part of the Council's e-mail and internet policy.
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender
immediately and then delete from your system.
This e-mail message and any attached files have been scanned for the
presence of computer viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk.
Email Disclaimer is:
http://www.blackpool.gov.uk/EmailDisclaimer/
This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft
Exchange as part of the Council's e-mail and internet policy.
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
|
