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.