JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Archives


CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Archives

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Archives


CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Home

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Home

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES  October 2005

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES October 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: PPS23 and Residential Developments [Scanned]

From:

"Wilkinson, Christiaan" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Wilkinson, Christiaan

Date:

Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:48:54 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (168 lines)

Have to agree with Gavin on this one and Lancaster have had similar
experiences.

Steve you wanted a reference;

"The precautionary principle means that it is not acceptable just to say
'we can't be sure that serious damage will happen, so we'll do nothing
to prevent it'. Precaution is not just relevant to environmental damage
- for example, chemicals which may affect wildlife may also affect human
health."

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/risk/eramguide/index.htm 

DETR Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management

No one has mentioned natural sources of contamination (except Paul)ie
soil gas production etc. PPS 23 clearly puts the responsibility on the
developer to ensure the site is suitable for use and as Mike and James
acknowledge resources are thin. LA's simple don't have the resources to
carry out adequate and documented preliminary risk assessments for these
types of developments therefore the onus is on the developer to prove
the site is suitable for use and not the LA to prove the site requires
assessment.


Regards,

God I hope I haven't spelt anything thong lol 

Christiaan Wilkinson
Lancaster City Council
01524 582741


-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hurst,
Darren
Sent: 20 October 2005 08:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PPS23 and Residential Developments [Scanned]

Steve,
	even with a desk-Study how do you know it not contaminated? -
even with a site investigation how do know its not contaminated
(investigate in the wrong place/look for the wrong things)???

	A degree of practicality must prevail. If you have done a half
decent job of identifying potential contaminated land sites in your area
(not necessarily prioritised them - but at least know of them) and none
of them relate to this site, and you have no other good reason for
suspecting the site, I would not consider asking for a desk-study.

	It would be fantastic to see a desk-top for every sensitive
development - not least because it would mean that developers are taking
their liabilities seriously and assessing the risks they are taking -
but I cant imagine the day that will happen. I read PPS23 in the same
way you did, but unless we are about to enter 'Contaminated Land Officer
Utopia' (where all our resource needs will be catered for - If Carlsberg
made a Contaminated Land Industry...........)it is going to be
impossible to seek a desk-study for all sensitive developments - you
just wont have time to go through them all (I wouldn't have time
anyway).  

	The statement from the ODPM is a typical "well I told you to do
it" statement - we're all suppose to check our tyres, oil, windscreen
wash and adjust our mirrors before we drive off in the
morning..........but we don't............do we?

	I may not fit into the "recognised reference or other respected
source" you looking for, but I'd be surprised if many other LA's do it
any differently.

Hope this helps

Regards, 
Darren Hurst 
Scientific Officer 
Tel: 01773 841318 
Fax: 01773 841317 
E-mail: [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 [Scanned]

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  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




************************************************************************
************
This email has been sent via the Internet. Internet communications 
are not secure against interception or modification. Amber Valley
Borough Council therefore cannot guarantee that this email has not 
been modified in transit, and this email on its own should not be 
viewed as contractually binding.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this
email in error please notify the sender and destroy your copies of 
the email and any attached files.
************************************************************************
************
Amber Valley Borough Council, 
Town Hall, Market Place, Ripley, Derbyshire DE5 3QX.
Why not visit our website http://www.ambervalley.gov.uk
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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
November 1999
July 1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager