Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Yes Andi, that's a fair assessment of the paragraph.
However the council has Nat England looking over its shoulder and interfering with the following.
Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
Natural England notes that the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has not been produced by your authority, but by the applicant. As competent authority, it is your responsibility to produce the HRA and be accountable for its conclusions. We provide the advice enclosed on the assumption that your authority intends to adopt this HRA to fulfil your duty as competent authority.
We have reviewed the HRA by Ramboll and note the appropriate assessment concludes that your authority is able to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of any of the sites in question.
Having considered your assessment, and the measures proposed to mitigate for any adverse effects, Natural England’s advice is that the assessment is not sufficiently rigorous or robust to justify this conclusion and therefore it is not possible to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the sites in question. We advise that your authority should not grant planning permission at this stage.
We advise that the following additional work on the assessment is required to enable it to be sufficiently rigorous and robust. (I leave out the mass of regulations for clarity)
Natural England should be re-consulted once this additional work has been undertaken and the appropriate assessment has been revised.
Please note that if your authority is minded to grant planning permission contrary to the advice in this letter, you are required under Section 28I (6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to notify Natural England of the permission, the terms on which it is proposed to grant it and how, if at all, your authority has taken account of Natural England’s advice. You must also allow a further period of 21 days before the operation can commence.
Basically they appear to be threatening the council if they do not comply with their requirements.
MJA
“Environmental Protection recommend the following revised conditions are attached to any decision notice if planning approval is granted.”
Doesn’t this line here mean that the council planning department can still grant conditional planning permission with the environmental conditions attached?
A quick google search
“As an alternative to outright refusal, the planning authority can grant permission subject to one or more conditions. It must advise you of the specific reasons for imposing the conditions.”
Its possible PT. However it has to be born in mind that Peels Protos Plastic park is in effect a FOAK park. This set of question and answers should be useful for the other nine or ten sites that Peel are proposing to set up. Obviously there will be some other site specific questions such as fire service requirements and the like. But as Peel has a tendency to use these types of near wild environments. The protection of wildlife questions should have already been modelled with standard answers. I do have one question myself. Peel I believe has outline planning for the park including the plots 1 and the canal barge off loading port etc north of the current plots 9, 10,11,12 . Any suggestions why they couldn't apply for those instead. Is it more difficult to cover the environment questions for those areas? Is this the area for proposed expansion. Could another DMG plant be needed?
mjallen: So looks like there could be further delays to obtaining planning permission for Peel's outstanding planning application.
Start part 2
2. If during site preparation, demolition or development works contamination is encountered or is suspected in areas where it had not been anticipated:
- being from an existing risk assessed source and
- containing comparable risk assessed substances and
- affecting an already risk assessed pathway or receptor
that could be addressed by simple extension of the approved measures to a larger area, then the LPA shall be notified promptly in writing confirming: - the areas affected, the approved investigation, remediation and validation measures to be applied and the anticipated completion timescale.
However, if the contamination is: -
- from a different source or
- contains a new contaminative substance or
- affects a new pathway or receptor
then revised proposals for detailed investigation, risk assessment, remediation and verification shall be submitted for the written approval of the LPA prior to all but urgent remediation works necessary to secure the area and control pollution risks.
3. No part of the development site approved by this permission shall be occupied until:
a) all components of the pre-approved or revised remediation measures to deal with the risks associated with actual or potential contamination of the site, relevant to that part, have been completed and
b) written evidence of satisfactory remediation completion and of the suitability of that part of the site for occupation has been submitted to and accepted by the LPA.
REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks.
So as you can see something is happening.
There are also some outstanding requests from the local Helsby council about cherry picking of sites and rail links. They want a time line for intended works. Which could be good for us investers.
MJA.
Another submission from the council re planning application. So those that don't believe Peel are putting the effort into the site the following is a copy of the latest request for answers.
On Behalf Of: Environmental Protection Team
Comments
Further to comments made on 10 May 2022 with respect to land contamination, Environmental Protection also add the following:
It is noted that the application red line boundary is larger than the site boundary presented in the submitted report (Smith Grant LLP, Stage 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment. Proposed Protos Plastic Park: Sites 9B, 10A, 11 and 12 located off Grinsome Road / Marsh Lane, Ince, Cheshire. Dated September 2021. Reference. R2997-R01-v3 Final).
Specifically, there is a strip of land to the west of Site 9B, associated with what is understood to be a hydrogen pipeline route.
Whilst this area is likely low risk with respect to contamination, this part of the site must be included in the site assessment and conceptual site model to fully assess potential risks.
Therefore, a revised preliminary risk assessment, taking into account the full site boundary, is required. All other future report submissions should also take this area into account.
Environmental Protection recommend the following revised conditions are attached to any decision notice if planning approval is granted.
Contaminated Land
1. No development shall take place until the following components (a to d) of a structured scheme to deal with the risks associated with actual or potential contamination of the site have each been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA):
a. A preliminary risk assessment which identifies:
- all previous uses on or within influencing distance of the site
- potential contaminants associated with those uses
- a conceptual model indicating the sources, pathways and receptors of contamination
- actual or potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination.
- initial remediation options.
b. A detailed scheme of site investigation based on component (a) from which a detailed assessment of risk to all current and future receptors that may be affected, including those off site, will be derived.
c. A remediation options appraisal and implementation strategy, based on the detailed results of (b), giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
d. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the remediation works set out in (c) are complete and effective and identifying any requirements for longer-term: - monitoring of pollutant linkages; maintenance, contingency actions and reporting.
The pre-development structured scheme shall be implemented as approved unless revision is agreed with the LPA in writing.
End of part 1