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 - Call for ODPM input

From:

"Drake, Jason" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Drake, Jason

Date:

Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:41:14 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (171 lines)

I'm with Jonathan on this one - the preceding discussion has shown a wide
range of views, and given that developers should (rightly) expect a level
playing field across the country, a wide range of views is perhaps not
acceptable.  It also leads to uncertainty amongst ourselves, and individuals
(rightly) worrying about liability and appearing in court.  We all need to
be singing from the same hymn-sheet.  From my fresh (naive?) point of view
guidance can only come from the top, but if we don't let "them" know, how
(apart from through the hard-work of the SCLC) can we expect our concerns to
be addressed. 

Jason.


-----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 communication is from City of York Council. 

The information contained within, and in any attachment(s), is confidential
and legally privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please note that any
form of distribution, copying or use of this communication, or the
information within, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Equally, you
must not disclose all, or part, of its contents to any other person.

If you have received this communication in error, please return it
immediately to the sender, then delete and destroy any copies of it.

City of York Council disclaims any liability for action taken in reliance on
the content of this communication.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2018
November 2018
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