**********************************************************************
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 you must delete
it and notify the system manager (e-mail: [log in to unmask]).
**********************************************************************
Steve
We condition all sensitive end uses even something like a new residential dwelling in a current residential back garden. We request a desk study and if that indicates no apparent problem we would still ask for ground conditions encountered during excavation of foundations at the site with photographic evidence. The reason for this is the note in PPS23 and the fact that due to the past industrial nature of the area there is a high potential for contamination. As yet we have had limited resistance from developers when this condition has been attached. As Paul highlights how do they know it is not contaminated without a desk study and if the condition is discharged without the desk study how will you ensure that any contamination identified during development will be dealt with accordingly. It would be virtually impossible to enforce through planning because the condition is discharged.
It would be interesting to know what others are requesting and what problems they have encountered
Aaron Turner
Scientific Officer
Oldham Metropolitan Borough 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
**********************************************************************
As a public body, the 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.
This note confirms that this email message has been swept for the
presence of computer viruses, however we advise that in keeping with
good IT practice the recipient should ensure that the e-mail together
with any attachments are virus free by running a virus scan themselves.
We cannot accept any responsibility for any damage or loss caused by
software viruses.
http://www.oldham.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
|