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  July 2008

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES July 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Planning Conditions

From:

[log in to unmask]

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:09:35 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (217 lines)

Ours will accept without Desk Studies and then condition as based on my
advice, but only if I can prove there's a definite cause of concern.  It
isn't sufficient for them to accept the precautionary principle - I'm just
going to have to be very sazzy with my arguments.
----- Forwarded by Tracy Hilton/AREAMANAGEMENT/RCBC on 23/07/2008 10:03
-----
                                                                                                                                                     
                      "Marie Mitchinson"                                                                                                             
                      <MarieMitchinson@chester-le-str        To:       <[log in to unmask]>,                                       
                      eet.gov.uk>                             <[log in to unmask]>                                          
                                                             cc:                                                                                     
                      23/07/2008 10:02                       Subject:  RE: Planning Conditions                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                     




Our Planning are taking the attitude that it is a 'more sensitive' end-use
since you are doubling the number of receptors on-site.  They are also
rejecting applications without a desk study and only accepting those that I
approve!  Maybe the Planners should be getting their heads together?  Seems
to me the CLOs are doing a canny job of it!

Marie Mitchinson
Technical Officer - Non Commercial
0191 3872200
Chester-le-Street District Council
Civic Centre
Newcastle Road
DH3 3QT
www.chester-le-street.gov.uk


-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
[log in to unmask]
Sent: 23 July 2008 09:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Planning Conditions


Thanks to all who have responded so far - it seems the general consensus is
to push for some form of pre validation upfront to the planning
application.  Whether I can convince Planning that this is necessary is
another thing!

One suggestion was that since the precautionary principle approach has been
rejected is to push forward with the argument that the site comprises made
ground due to having previously been occupied by a house.
----- Forwarded by Tracy Hilton/AREAMANAGEMENT/RCBC on 23/07/2008 09:38
-----
|---------+--------------------------------------------->
|         |           Martin Wright                     |
|         |           <[log in to unmask]>        |
|         |           Sent by: Contaminated Land        |
|         |           Management Discussion List        |
|         |           <CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES@JISC|
|         |           MAIL.AC.UK>                       |
|         |                                             |
|         |                                             |
|         |           22/07/2008 16:50                  |
|         |           Please respond to Martin Wright   |
|         |                                             |
|---------+--------------------------------------------->

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

  |
|
  |       To:       [log in to unmask]
|
  |       cc:
|
  |       Subject:  Re: Planning Conditions
|

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|





I would not invoke the precautionary principle in this case but instead
rely on the requirement to receive a suitable description /site recce of
the site from elsewhere in PPS23 AND in theone app form.

Its pointed out in the PPS and annex that mapping can only give a partial
view of the site and is generally incapable of identifying natural
contamination, radon issues, made ground or features of the site that would
not have triggered a revised map.  Not seeing anything on an old OS map is
not a sufficient  description of the site to eliminate a range of possible
issues for planners and building control (though it does reduce the odds).

If your planners are using the national oneapp form then the tick box
approach of that requires an assessment if the use is sensitive even if the
previous use is not contaminative its an OR rather than an AND requirement.
(has anyone ever identified a list of sensitive uses in this context from
central government).

I would certainly push the applicants to demonstrate a basic understanding
of the site. its current and historic setting though not usually require
this be undertaken by an environmental consultant unless there was reason
to suspect something quite significant (such as a soil gas issue).

These small sites frequently take more time due to the handholding required
but it is quite satisfying when you help reveal an issue perhaps the
applicant was not aware of (recent examples  include finding an extension
who's proposed  strip foundations would have tried to bridged a large pit
of and an old HGV yard disguised within  farm outbuildings).

You will probably find your planners requiring photomontages of such sites,
maybe structural surveys of old buildings etc, They don't have much reason
not to enhance that slightly to get enough information for you to decide
whether or not in a particular case you think the issues are significant
enough to refuse, condition or pass an application.



Martin Wright
Scientific Officer
Environmental Protection
Vale Royal Borough Council
Wyvern House
The Drumber
Winsford
Cheshire
CW7 1AH

tel:- 01606 867520
fax:- 01606 867885

(Embedded image moved to file: pic21724.gif)



             Tracy_Hilton@REDC
             AR-CLEVELAND.GOV.
             UK                                                         To
             Sent by:                  CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES@JISCMA
             Contaminated Land         IL.AC.UK
             Management                                                 cc
             Discussion List
             <CONTAMINATED-LAN                                     Subject
             D-STRATEGIES@JISC         Planning Conditions
             MAIL.AC.UK>


             22/07/2008 14:58


             Please respond to
             Tracy_Hilton@REDC
             AR-CLEVELAND.GOV.
                    UK






Dear Subscribers,

Following previous debate on the Model Planning Conditions which was very
helpful, I am now faced with a dilemma over the advice I provide to
Planning for single dwellings on sites with no previous history of
potentially contaminative activity.  I tried to convince Planning that the
applicant should submit basic Desk Study information to account for the
time lapsed since the last published map and to set the site in its
contemporary setting.  I justified this with paragraph 2.27 of Annex 2 of
PPS23 which states that on a precautionary basis the possibility of
contamination should be assumed where considered uses are particularly
sensitive to contamination e.g. housing etc.  I also quoted paragraph 2.42
requiring the applicant to submit information to determine whether an
application can proceed due to the proposed use being particularly
vulnerable.  Planning came back with the argument that PPS23 paragraph 6
states "the precautionary principle should only be invoked when there is
good reason to believe that harmful effects may occur to human, animal or
plant health, or to the environment."

Thus, if this is how we are to interpret the precautionary principle as
detailed in Annex 2, it appears that Planning are right and it is
acceptable for us to only consult the in-house records and if no
contamination is suspected we can't justify conditioning the application
for a contaminated land survey.  On top of this, Planning believe that
there is currently a legal appeal at the High Court based on abuse of the
precautionary principle but unfortunately they haven't managed to find the
details yet.  Can anyone shed any light on this?

Kind regards,

Tracy Hilton
Contaminated Land Officer
Tel 01287 612420

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the
MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information contact Vale
Royal IS


_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail and any attachment are sent in confidence for the addressee
only and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient
of this message, you must not disclose, distribute, copy or take any action
in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender. The views of the author may not necessarily
reflect those from Vale Royal Borough Council.

Vale Royal Borough Council virus scans all inbound and outbound e-mails
(plus any attachments) but does not guarantee such messages to be virus
free.  The onus is on the receiving recipients to check they are virus
free.(See attached file: pic21724.gif)

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
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

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

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