You could argue that where the potential risk of harm is significant (according to the tox)and where uncertainty levels are high, this precautionary approach might be adopted.
Ruth
Ruth Willcox
Environmental Protection Officer
Office of the Director of Public Health
Plymouth City Council
Civic Centre
Plymouth
PL1 2AA
T +441752304154
E [log in to unmask]
www.plymouth.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clive Williams
Sent: 14 May 2014 11:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: C4SL
Just to throw more wood onto this slow burner, reading the latest CIRIA Asbestos report and in the section on planning, development control and EPA 1990 there is this:
"It is appropriate that the planning process adopt a more stringent standard for the levels of soil contamination than are relevant under Part 2A. This prevents developments being determined as ‘contaminated land’ in the future when, and if, acceptable exposures to contaminants change."
I can see the sense in this approach, but where do you stop?
Clive
********************************************************************************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential or sensitive information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it to any other person or take any action in reliance. If you have received it in error, please notify your system manager and the sender as soon as possible and then delete it from your system.
|