The bodies are: The Environmental Industries Commission, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, The Specialist in Land Condition Professional and Technical Panel and the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists’ Contaminated Land Working Group.

They have written to Greg Clark about national planning policy (Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements), which is due to be replaced by a single national planning framework.

Of particular concern to the brownfield development industry is the proposed withdrawal and replacement of PPS23 (and its Annex 2) by a short and focussed note.

PPS23 has played an important role in the regeneration of brownfield sites over the last six years. They worry that if it is abandoned "we risk a return to the unplanned (and potentially unsafe) redevelopment of brownfield sites that took place up until the relatively recent past".

Policy and its implementation about developing brownfield sites have progressed in leaps and bounds over the last few years, and have played a key role in protecting much undeveloped land and biodiversity, as well as protecting the land around brownfield sites, and developments constructed upon them, from environmental pollution.

As a result planning decisions currently need to reference a large number of documents in order to arrive at a proper decision.

So the letter says: "An essential role of PPS23 has been the signposting to sources of [this] critical information."

The bodies want any replacement document to reference all this current advice, while striving for clarity and simplicity.

The Department of Communities And Local Government believes that its job here is to rationalise and simplify red tape. But these bodies are worried that the baby will be thrown out with the bath water.

"Although there is some repetition of advice within PPS23 (Annex 2)," they say, "this repetition is entirely helpful. The roles and responsibilities of all parties within the contaminated land community are clearly set out, each in their own section of text, with the developer specifically told what information they as the applicant has to provide and local authority provided with clear guidance on matters to consider when determining a planning application.

"The mirroring of the guidance provided in these separate sections leaves no room for doubt and must assist in bringing the expectations of all parties closer together."

They have identified seven key recommendations that should be protected in the new planning policy guidance on land affected by contamination:

  1. a clear and unequivocal statement that contamination is a material planning consideration;
  2. drawing attention to the opportunities presented by redevelopment to mitigate the risks posed by land affected by contamination;
  3. including critically important statements on the relationship between Part 2A and the planning regime (e.g. ‘As a minimum, following development, land should not be capable of being Determined under Part2A’;
  4. strongly advising the local planning authority to always consult their contaminated land officers on Brownfield redevelopment sites;
  5. stressing that it is the developer’s responsibility to carry out the necessary investigation, assessment and remediation;
  6. clearly stating that the minimum information required from the applicant is a report of a desk study and walkover survey;
  7. keeping the position that the required standard of remediation is the removal of unacceptable risk and making the site ‘suitable for use’.
  8. promotes the use of competent professionals to undertake the assessment of land, for example the SiLC scheme promotes an appropriate level of competence across the many skill areas involved in Brownfield sites.

> www.eic-uk.co.uk