It is interesting to note the map comments over the past few days, especially 
when combined with the earlier comment about desk studies being proportional 
to the risk/size of the development. We and several other consultancies 
around the UK are developing or have developed cut down versions of full 
commercial desk studies (produced in line with the EA guidance) that could be 
used in situations such as extensions and single house developments in urban 
housing or rural areas. 

It is rather odd that in some cases the cost of a proper full desk study would 
in fact be greater than the estimated profit the client may make on the 
development. Commercial developers can normally defray or absorb such 
costs, so in effect it costs them nothing really, but private developers often 
balk at the requirement and do ask us time and again why they have to pay so 
much, especially when most of the time even a full desk study shows nothing 
of potential interest. We are aware of at least two Councils that now use in-
house GIS systems to determine on the basis of past reports, map layers and 
local information databases, if they really require a desk study at all. 

I do find it ironic that I proposed something very similar about 10 years ago to 
my previous company whereby we would provide a basic background check for 
housing conveyancing and/or minor works and developments. Basically what 
became sitecheck, but with additional interpretation on top obtained (in those 
days) from a site and local library visit. Therefore my main question is what is 
considered proportionate in such cases? 

Having taught this topic to others in my company, I have always considered 
the historical maps to be the backbone on which you place everything else 
and so I naturally think they are essential. In addition, I am also firmly of the 
opinion that a site visit should be mandatory to ensure you have a handle on 
the topography, local drainage, surrounding land uses and so on. Getting a feel 
for the site by viswiting the area really helps develop the evolving model in 
your mind. A quick check of the EA website for landfills, discharge consents, 
etc. the local geology through the BGS website or appropriate publications, a 
chat with the local contaminated land officer for anything locally important and 
I think you probably do cover about 80%+ of the potential risks in this limited 
sort of scenario.

We all know that sitecheck has been acceptable to some planners as a base 
document for years, despite comments to the contrary in current EA and 
Council guidance (and effectively in the caveats in the sitecheck itself). 
Therefore would this or just the map set now be acceptable as base 
information for small works or single house size developments in someone's 
back garden? Or should regulators be insisting on a full desk study at all times 
or perhaps only doing so when their internal GIS systems and/or experience 
indicate their may be a problem in that particular area? 

Chris Swainston