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

From:

"Naylor, John" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Naylor, John

Date:

Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:38:01 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (121 lines)

This is one of the longest threads I seen for a while on here!  Lets add
a bit more eh!

It is the role of the applicant/developer is to check whether:
o	The land is already affected by contamination using pollution
linkages and conceptual models
o	The proposed development will create new pollution linkages
o	What actions are required to break those pollution linkages and
avoid new ones, deal with any unacceptable risks and enable safe
development and 	future occupancy of the site and neighbouring
land

If the applicant or developer can't demonstrate all of the above then
the application should not be validated and passed back until such
information is available, and particularly in the case of new sensitive
end use developments.  In other words the Planning Authority don't
actually have to refuse it which could then lead to appeals.  Developers
and applicants should be encouraged to go for more screening opinions
from the planners so they will have a much better idea of what is
required.

All planning departments must consider contamination in line with PPS23.
The easiest way to do this is to go over a speak to the planners and set
up some form of system that is PPS23 compliant, as we have attempted
here a Bury.  Yes, there have been a few little hiccups and work load
has increased (but just think about all those sites you won't need to
deal with under Part IIA) but overall the system has been a success and
will be improved upon as we go.  It is also important that we
inform/educate developers and consultants what we require via the
planning process.  The earlier we do this, the easier it will get. 

If they have a decent stab at the above, and we feel confident that they
can achieve safe development then we then accept the application and
usually place conditions dependant of the information available. 

Regards,
John Naylor
Environmental Protection Officer
Bury M.B.C.

tel: 0161 253 6392
fax: 0161 253 5563 
email: [log in to unmask]
Environmental Services, Textile Hall, Manchester Road, Bury BL9 0DG
 www.bury.gov.uk



-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Parr
Sent: 21 October 2005 08:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PPS23 and Residential Developments


For what its worth (not much I know!); here is my two-penneth!

I must admit to being in agreement with Nick and Chris; we are told how
to assess things in Policy and Guidance.  As Nick said if this isn't
what the Government wanted then they would have said something
different. 

I also thing that the most important thing that has been overlooked is
the liability issues!  At the end of the day we are only advisors to DC
and have no influence with them;  as is attested by many CLO's across
the Country!!! However do not think that your friendly Planner will be
the first to try and pass the buck onto someone else if it goes wrong;
that someone else being the CLO!!!

As a more pragmatic approach I assess the Planning week each list; and
taken into account site use, previous site use and underlying
soil/geology, I advise Planning what I think is required.  If they
choose to ignore this then it's not my problem; the likelihood is that
there is no issue's with the site; however who wants to be the CLO who
missed something when it all blows up because they decided to not follow
UK Planning Policy and use an arbitrary approach to determining which
sites do or don't need planning conditions or advice notes?!  Which is
the reason I document everything I say to Planning and save every email
I send; because i'm not being blamed for their mistakes!!

Yes, we need to educate not only our Planners, but also our Upper
Echelons of the Council as well as Members; I don't want to have to do
it all after something has gone wrong and people's dreams/lives/life has
been destroyed because I decided to not follow the Policy we have been
given.  

Lets put it another way; when doing a DQRA and you need the tox data for
a substance; who doesn't follow the Policy as outlined in CLR9?  So why
treat this any different?  The Policy is there to protect not only the
people who live in the end development, but also us from potential
liabilities.

Anyway; as far as I am concerned the Policy and Guidance are there to be
followed; and follow them I will.  Maybe it lacks creative thought and
thinking; but then I don't actually see that as being a necessary part
of advising Planning!!

I know us CLO's in Lancashire have had a discussion regarding
extensions/conservatories, and this is a difficult issue that needs to
be addressed; I mean nothing was done to the houses to protect them from
contamination when originally built and there has been no issue's since,
so why bother with an extension?  But then disturbing the ground with an
excavation/construction, however small, could introduce that pathway
that leads to dire consequences? 

To me Land Contamination is thinking the worse and then proving its not
there; but then maybe that is because I am a pessimist!  This is how I
work and base my decision's; as I'm buggered if I want to be the one
standing up in Court defending my pragmatic approach when there is a
Policy context out there to follow; when someone's got skin lesions from
Arsenic exposure from their garden after a conservatory was built that
disturbed the ground! Because I know it wouldn't last two minutes and I
would be the one who got blamed!

Jon
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.

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