Time for my rant ;-)
Seems like pragmatism is applied when it suits and I don't quite get the
back yard analogy. Yes there is possibly more risk to a greater number
of receptors from old lead paint but how much of that is your garden or
any other?
If we can justify recommending a planning condition for all new builds
with a sensitive end use then why aren't we doing that?? If planners
wish to dismiss our recommendations then any future liability lies
firmly with them. If planners require further presentations bringing
them up to date with PPS 23 and Approved Doc C then we should be
addressing this. Oh and in my opinion apathy with past working practices
is a poor excuse for not trying.
Oh baby that felt good :-) no offence meant to anyone.
Christiaan
Lancaster CC
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ivens,
Rob
Sent: 20 October 2005 15:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PPS23 and Residential Developments
In view of the general replies shifting ground a little I am going to
put my two penneth in. I am not prepared to sink under unnecessary
planning consultations when I have residents screaming for action over
obvious screw ups in the past.
I do not consider the average desk study any good for decision making.
The landmark maps tell only part of the storey. We are hoping to
implement a low medium and high risk ranking system for sites grad off
against vulnerability of the receptor and risk.
But the paperwork is currently under 1 foot of part IIA files.!!!
1. Thus an extension/conservatory to an existing property on a low or
medium risk site would require no consultation from planners
2. Introduction of a vulnerable receptor on any previously contaminative
use would require consultation and consideration. If there was believed
to be a risk we would require an SI. If there was considered no risk- no
si.
Reason I have an Edwardian house, its 100 years old and there is enough
ash and clinker in the garden to fail an si if you look in the right
places. Is it contaminated- no.
Do I or my under 6 year old children care NO.
In my opinion there is more risk from the old lead paint I have been
stripping!
Another soap box burning
ps I agree with ben on the conservatories and we have reluctantly been
putting planning conditions on conservatories on high risk sites and
assisting residents to do the si... so nothing is ever clear!
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ben
Crowther
Sent: 20 October 2005 11:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PPS23 and Residential Developments
Hello all
Good debate this, opened a can here eh Stevie G?
I have two conservatories on an ex- woollen mill site at the moment
built 18 years ago, and no remediation on the site, 50 quid commercially
available reports show it as a none industrial site, our more detailed
research noted a wacking great mill there!
So far as were only 10% into the whole borough RA we can't take action
on the site, so the individual householders have to check their gardens
as they come up through planning, so were picking up lots of
contaminated sites through conservatoires and extensions, were not
requiring Ph1's on sheds/portches/detacted garages though, I managed to
pursuade the planners not to go that far!
Ben Crowther.
>>> "Crossfield, Alan (Lincoln City Council)"
<[log in to unmask]> 10/20/05 10:15am >>>
Nick - do you REALLY believe that old story about the landfill gas
entering
a new extension being enough to keep the
flame of the builder's blowtorch going when he turned his gas off!!!
Come on
- you're a scientist!
If there is ever a case where a CLO believes that an extension to an
existing house requires Phase 1, Phase 2 and remediation, then the
question
you should be asking yourself is why is this site not already being
looked
at under Part IIA, as it should be at the top of your prioritisation
list!
A Blackadder III episode title springs to mind.................Sense &
Senility.
alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Howard, Nick [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 October 2005 09:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PPS23 and Residential Developments
Steve,
When we don't have information about the former land uses for a proposed
residential development that clearly doesn't mean there isn't a hazard
present. I think that sometimes authorities might feel there is such a
low likelihood of finding serious hazards on land without history of
polluting industries that they can't bring themselves to insist on a
desk study. But what about the consequences when occasionally this
leads to serious risks being overlooked?
Local planning authorities are obliged to have regard for 'material
considerations' and to planning policy documents including PPS23. I
haven't seen any departures in national policy that will support and
protect authorities taking a 'real-world' approach, and I haven't seen
any local policies propose this either. As public bodies we're exposed
to questions and risks if we do otherwise than follow policy.
If policy-makers had intended us to make arbitrary 'blind' decisions
about when not to require desk studies they would have stated this in
national policy. They didn't. Instead they placed the burden on the
developer and we have to assume this reflects an acceptance that paying
for a desk study is not an unreasonable burden on them. It's the place
of trade lobbies, not local authorities, to challenge such a policy in
terms of the developer's obligations.
Who are we serving if we take the burden of responsibility away from the
developer and onto ourselves?
When we find planners who are reluctant to follow our advice, all we can
do is attempt to persuade them and then the risk is down to them. With
a bit of corporate awareness-raising and some local 'Supplementary
Planning Guidance' (SPG) reflecting PPS23, hopefully we can overcome
their doubts and secure some consistency.
The only question in my mind is about infill single dwelling
developments and extensions. In both cases I've found 1960s/70s/80s
developments lacking original remediation or where landfill gas
protection measures were originally provided but this fact has been
overlooked for the new additional development. I've heard of a case
where the landfill gas entering a new extension was enough to keep the
flame of the builder's blowtorch going when he turned his gas off.
On the point about auditing all these extra desk studies - if they were
consistently asked for they would improve in quality and we wouldn't
have to waste so much time critising them. We shouldn't accept planning
applications without them and should be prepared to reject, reject,
reject! This is where a local SPG comes in handy.
Regards and apologies for a long reply but you've raised an important
point,
Nick Howard
EP Manager
Lancaster City 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 paperee dwelling
developments and exte
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.
=======================================================================
============================
City of Lincoln Council - Important Change to Opening Hours
>From 1st June 2005 the City of Lincoln Council will be undertaking staff
training on Wednesday mornings until 9:30 am.
For all routine services before 9.30 on Wednesday mornings,please visit
www.lincoln.gov.uk or tel. 01522 881188.
=======================================================================
============================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the indiviual or entity to whom
they are addressed. Under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 the contents of this
email may be disclosed. The City of Lincoln Council reserves the right
to monitor both sent and received emails.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system
manager who can be contacted at IT [log in to unmask]
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of any compter viruses
www.mimesweeper.com
=======================================================================
============================
########################################################################
#############
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
by MailMarshal, the Council's Content Scanner
########################################################################
#############
########################################################################
##############
Warning
Please note that whilst this e-mail and any attachments originate from
Calderdale MBC,
the views expressed may not necessarily represent the views of
Calderdale MBC.
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
privileged,
confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.
They must not be used by, or copied or disclosed to persons other than
the intended recipient.
Any liability (in negligence or otherwise) arising from any third party
acting, or refraining from acting,
on any information contained in this e-mail is excluded.
If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and
delete the e-mail.
E-mail can never be 100% secure. Please bear this in mind and carry out
such virus and other checks, as you consider appropriate.
Calderdale MBC accepts no responsibility in this regard.
Copyright of this e-mail and any attachments belongs to Calderdale MBC.
Should you communicate with anyone at Calderdale MBC by e-mail, you
consent to the
Council monitoring and reading any such correspondence.
########################################################################
##############
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.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.
|
