Technical Note Page: 1 of 13 Project: Electricity generation operating reserve compound on Land at Unit 6A Coed Darcy Business Park Subject: Ground Conditions Statement Prepared by: Joanne Foy Date: 8 th October 2018 Approved by: Natalie Williams Date: 8 th October 2018 Ground Conditions Introduction AECOM has been commissioned to assist PeakGen Power 5 Limited who are applying for part-retrospective planning permission for a circa 20MW electricity generation operating reserve facility to support the National Grid along with the proposed installation of additional ancillary plant and equipment. The development comprises ten 2MW generators which are housed in insulated container units, together with five fuel storage containers, two switchgear containers, five transformers, an AdBlue tank, and other ancillary equipment. Planning permission is also sought for additional plant and ancillary equipment that is required to be installed on site under the new Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 and which will meet improved emission standards.The constructed Project was commissioned in 2015 (planning reference P2012/1061). However, the development was completed without compliance with some of the planning conditions included within the permission. Consequently, this retrospective planning application seeks to regularise the position. The permission included 4 pre-commencement conditions (Nos. 17 to 20) that related to ground conditions and contamination. This technical note demonstrates that although not formally discharged, the requirements of the conditions were fully complied with by Peak Gen prior to the development of the Application Site. These conditions are summarised below: · Condition 17: Pre-commencement of works, a condition requiring assessment of the nature and extent of contamination and the potential risks posed by that contamination through completion of a phased risk assessment including desk study, site investigation, risk assessment, appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred remedial option; · Condition 18: Pre-commencement of works, a condition requiring remediation to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to the identified receptors; · Condition 19: Prior to beneficial use of the development, a condition requiring a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the agreed remedial works; and · Condition 20: Condition requiring that should contamination be found during development, work on site should cease whilst it was assessed and a remedial strategy implemented. Prior to occupation of the development, a verification report would be required to demonstrate the effectiveness of the remediation. Scope of Works In order to assess the current situation and demonstrate that the conditions were complied with, AECOM undertook the following scope of works:
Transcript
Technical Note
Page: 1 of 13
Project: Electricity generation operating reservecompound on Land at Unit 6A Coed DarcyBusiness Park
Subject: Ground Conditions Statement
Prepared by: Joanne Foy Date: 8th October 2018
Approved by: Natalie Williams Date: 8th October 2018
Ground Conditions
Introduction
AECOM has been commissioned to assist PeakGen Power 5 Limited who are applying forpart-retrospective planning permission for a circa 20MW electricity generation operatingreserve facility to support the National Grid along with the proposed installation of additionalancillary plant and equipment. The development comprises ten 2MW generators which arehoused in insulated container units, together with five fuel storage containers, two switchgearcontainers, five transformers, an AdBlue tank, and other ancillary equipment. Planningpermission is also sought for additional plant and ancillary equipment that is required to beinstalled on site under the new Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment)Regulations 2018 and which will meet improved emission standards.The constructed Projectwas commissioned in 2015 (planning reference P2012/1061). However, the developmentwas completed without compliance with some of the planning conditions included within thepermission. Consequently, this retrospective planning application seeks to regularise theposition.
The permission included 4 pre-commencement conditions (Nos. 17 to 20) that related toground conditions and contamination. This technical note demonstrates that although notformally discharged, the requirements of the conditions were fully complied with by Peak Genprior to the development of the Application Site. These conditions are summarised below:
· Condition 17: Pre-commencement of works, a condition requiring assessment of thenature and extent of contamination and the potential risks posed by that contaminationthrough completion of a phased risk assessment including desk study, site investigation,risk assessment, appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred remedialoption;
· Condition 18: Pre-commencement of works, a condition requiring remediation to bringthe site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks tothe identified receptors;
· Condition 19: Prior to beneficial use of the development, a condition requiring averification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the agreed remedial works; and
· Condition 20: Condition requiring that should contamination be found duringdevelopment, work on site should cease whilst it was assessed and a remedial strategyimplemented. Prior to occupation of the development, a verification report would berequired to demonstrate the effectiveness of the remediation.
Scope of Works
In order to assess the current situation and demonstrate that the conditions were compliedwith, AECOM undertook the following scope of works:
Technical Note
Page: 2 of 13
· review of publicly available information from the Coed Darcy application which providesevidence of remediation to required standards;
· review of information on the potential impact of the development on pathways formigration (e.g. via piling or excavation);
· provision of an explanation as to the use of the facility and identification of appropriatereceptors for assessment of contamination; and
· Provision of a statement on the appropriate standards for assessment of contamination.
Sources of Information
Table 1 details the sources of information that have been used in preparation of thisassessment.
Table 1: Sources of Information used by AECOM
Reference Information Title Description
1 Development plan submitted withapplication
Redline boundary plan (hereafterreferred to as the ‘Project SiteBoundary’) as submitted for theplanning application P2012/1061
2 St. Modwen Developments Ltd. CoedD’Arcy. Peak Gen Compound, UtilitiesCorridor (Monitor Phase 26). ValidationReport. Atkins. April 2013. Reference5041216-UTL-RPT-000905.
Validation report produced by AtkinsEnvironmental for the relevant area ofthe Coed Darcy site.
3 Deed of Planning Obligations pursuantto section 106 of the Town and CountryPlanning Act 1990, relating to land atLlandarcy, Neath Port Talbot, SouthWales. Reference GNP/NJR/13773-2
Section 106 agreement for the widerCoed Darcy site.
4 Coed Darcy Urban Village ProposedService Corridor (Road 5). Discussionof ground conditions and remediationproposals. Atkinks. September 2011.Reference 5041216-REM-TN-000577
Conceptual Site Model of a servicecorridor of the Llandarcy Refinery,which runs close to the Peak Gen area.Includes a historical map extract.
Includes details of road drainage withinthe roadway associated with thedevelopment.
11 Peak Gen Llandarcy Aerial View Videoprovided by Peak Gen.
Aerial view of the completeddevelopment.
12 OS Tile with levels and site outlineprovided by Peak Gen.
Survey of ground levels.
Interpretation
Assessment and Remediation Previously Undertaken
The site plan submitted to NPTCBC (Ref.1 and Figure 1 below) as part of the 2012application identifies the Application Site. The boundary shown on this plan accords with apart of the area shown to be the subject of the Atkins Limited (Atkins) Validation Report (Ref.2 and Figure 2 below) (hereafter referred to as the ‘Atkins Report’).
Technical Note
Page: 4 of 13
Figure 1: Project Site Boundary (A)
Figure 2: Subject area of Atkins Report
The Atkins Report confirms the following context to the site and its development.
The Coed Darcy site was acquired by St. Modwen Development Ltd (SMD) from BP Oil Llandarcy Refinery Ltd. following the decommissioning and demolition of the former Llandarcy Oil Refinery. Following acquisition of the site, SMD entered into a Deed of Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the whole site (Ref. 3). This Section 106 agreement required SMD to undertake contamination assessment and remediation to certain standards with reporting and sign off by an assigned Monitor. SMD commissioned Atkins to provide consultancy advice with redevelopment of the Project Site, i.e. to assist them in discharging their obligations under the Section 106 agreement. The Atkins Report was provided in order to discharge those conditions specifically for this area of the Application Site. It is noted that the Atkins Report covers a wider area (termed Monitor Phase 26) and therefore some information within it will not be directly relevant to this development. Wherever possible, the information below has been restricted to the redline boundary.
The following information is summarised from the Atkins Report and relevant other reports:
Table 2: Contamination Assessment information
Subject Notes Sources
Site history Application Site was within the Llandarcy refinery but was largely undeveloped (note, site plans show no development within the Project Site Boundary). The closest historical use of interest is the oil water separators which are to the south east of the Peak Gen area. In 2013, it was noted that one set of separators were still in use, the other removed in the 1970s.
Ref. 2, Ref. 4, Ref. 5, Ref. 6.
Published Glacial drift (undifferentiated) overlying Carboniferous, Upper Ref. 2.
Technical Note
Page: 5 of 13
Subject Notes SourcesGeology Pennant Measures.
Hydrology andHydrogeology
Sandstones are a Secondary A aquifer. Closest hydrologicalfeatures are the Tennant Canal and River Neath approximately1km to the East.Groundwater monitoring wells were installed across the lowerglacial till and upper weathered sandstone (BHPS102) with theother monitoring well (SBH13) installed to 3.3m depth withwater recorded between 1.1 and 1.6 mbgl.
Ref. 2.
GroundConditions
Granular Made Ground overlying natural deposits of GlacialTill.
Ref. 2.
Samplingundertaken
The Section 106 required certain levels of sampling frequency.In this case, it was 1 sample per 400 m2 of area. Thevalidation report states that these frequencies were met forPhase 26 as a whole. It is noted from a review of the drawingthat due to services crossing the Phase, many of theselocations were within the Peak Gen application redlineboundary.
Ref. 2.
Indications ofcontamination
Visual and olfactory evidence of contamination up to amaximum of Class VO 3 (frequent staining of soil or distinctbut not strong odour on soil).Assessment of samples with sample depths of up to 0.5mbelow ground level (prior to development) from validation trialpitting and previous ground investigations indicated only oneexceedance of the adopted thresholds (see below). This wasfor benzo(a)pyrene which was recorded as 49.6 mg/kg in onesample against a criterion of 24.8 mg/kg. This area wasremediated through excavation and the sides and baseretested with no evidence of contamination reported from thatremediation.Maximum asbestos quantitative results were reported to be0.0016%. This was noted to be compliant with the Section 106threshold of 0.03 %.Free phase hydrocarbon was not detected in one monitoringwell within this area. No results were provided for anothermonitoring well noted to be serviceable.With respect to groundwater results, two samples from onewell were analysed for metals, sulphate and chloride,Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), fractionatedhydrocarbons, and selected Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs). Exceedances of Remedial Target Criteria (RTC) wererecorded for aliphatic hydrocarbons and benzene from onewell (BHPS102) with one exceedance of the EnvironmentalQuality Standard (EQS) for zinc also recorded. It was notedthat some exceedances (including for benzene) wereattributed to disturbance from drilling. AECOM note that theRTC used are for residential use and therefore not relevant tothe current assessment. The only EQS exceedance was for
Ref. 2.
Technical Note
Page: 6 of 13
Subject Notes Sourceszinc.
RemediationCriteria
Risks to off-site Controlled Waters were mitigated by theactions outlined in the Remedial Action Plan, as summarisedin the Section 106 Agreement. Further works were considerednecessary to mitigate the risks to human health in the event ofdevelopment of the Application Site. The requirements forsuch redevelopments are outlined in Section 8 of the Section106 agreement; this sets out the principles and objectives ofany Remediation Works. It includes aesthetic and chemicalcriteria that need to be met for soil and groundwater, assumingvarious land uses.The adopted thresholds for contamination assessment for thisPhase were the Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSL),included in the Section 106, and the Remedial TargetConcentrations (RTC), as calculated by Atkins.Soil RBSLs available in the Section 106 are split intoresidential, commercial, and recreational land uses and splitbetween the top 1m below final finish level and soils belowthis. They are provided for metals, hydrocarbon aliphatic andaromatic fractions, selected organic compounds, andasbestos.Groundwater RBSLs available in the Section 106 are also splitinto residential, commercial, and recreational land uses andare provided for hydrocarbon aliphatic and aromatic fractions,and selected organic compounds.The Section 106 includes provision for additional RBSLs to becalculated where required for other compounds suspected tobe present.The RBSLs were derived by URS (now part of AECOM) usinggeneric assumptions based on available human healthguidance at the time of preparation with site specificconsiderations. They were designed to be protective of health.Atkins derived additional criteria, termed RTCs, based onhuman health risk assessment broadly applicable to theProject Site. These were derived for residential use only andas such are not relevant to this area of the Project Site.
Ref. 2, Ref.3, Ref. 7.
Remediationundertaken
The Section 106 deed included different scenarios forassessment of the requirement for remediation. This area wasclassified as “commercial end use where groundwater is insoil” with a minimum remediation requirement of:· Removal of oil saturated soils and soil containing free
product other than minor sheens removed to a minimumdepth of 2m below final finish levels or 0.5m below the likelylowest seasonal groundwater elevation followingdevelopment, whichever is deeper;
· All soils to meet the RBSL for hydrocarbons to at least 1mbelow final finish level;
Ref. 2.
Technical Note
Page: 7 of 13
Subject Notes Sources· All soils to meet in bulk the RBSL for asbestos and any
visible asbestos removed to at least 1 m below final finishlevel;
· Where there is risk of migration in ground of hazardous gasor contaminated liquid to remediated areas, the developershould take all appropriate measures to prevent this; and
· Where necessary, seeps, sheens, and iron rich dischargesfrom the bedrock must be controlled.
The only remediation considered to be required for Phase 26within the Peak Gen redline boundary was the excavation ofsoils from around PGC003. This required a small excavationto a depth of 0.3m with sampling from the base; none of thefour sides showed exceedances of the criteria. It was notedthat a watching brief would be required during development.
The Atkins Report notes the following constraints:· Water supply pipes: It was noted that the level of adopted
thresholds for hydrocarbons precluded the use ofconventional polyethylene water supply pipes. It wasrecommended that a barrier pipe be assumed to berequired for the purposes of initial assessment;
· Ground and construction workers: It was noted that the riskassessment did not include occupational risks to workersinvolved in activities which could include exposure tosubsurface materials. AECOM notes that this is standardpractice and, as indicated in the Atkins Report, a separateassessment would be required in line with good health andsafety practice. It was also noted that development shouldbe observed by a suitable geo-environmental engineer;
· Gas protective measures: It was noted that the Section 106requires the installation of a proprietary and appropriate gasresistant membrane and appropriate venting system in allstructures that will be entered by people and any structurewhere there is a potential for gas accumulation if groundgas is present. It was envisaged that structures associatedwith the electricity generator compound would be ventilatedas part of the design;
· Clean cover: it was noted that the Section 106 requirementfor clean cover in areas of gardens or landscaping was notrelevant to this area given the proposed development of thePeak Gen facility.
Ref. 2.
The conclusion of the Atkins Report was that Monitor Phase 26 was considered to haveachieved the requirements of the Section 106 in place for Coed Darcy. Under the terms ofthe Section 106, all verification reports required sign off by the designated monitor. Thedesignated monitor was URS Corporation Ltd. (now part of AECOM) and the RemediationCertificate (Ref. 8) for the whole of Phase 26, including but not limited to the Peak Gen area.It stated;
Technical Note
Page: 8 of 13
· It was evident that Atkins has reviewed the information collected for this area of theProject Site and developed a thorough understanding of both potential and actualcontamination;
· URS was satisfied that sufficient intrusive investigations had been completed prior toremediation;
· URS was satisfied that the proposed remedial works would achieve the requirements ofthe Section 106 Agreement and that the remedial works were undertaken in generalaccordance with the remediation strategy and requirements of the Section 106agreement;
· URS was satisfied that oil saturated soils and soil containing free product do not appearto be present within Phase 26 for the depths below the final finish level specified in theSection 106 agreement;
· URS was satisfied that the soils across Phase 26 met the necessary RBSLs, includingfor asbestos;
· URS was satisfied that there was little to no risk of migration of in ground hazardous gasor contaminated liquid into Phase 26;
· URS was satisfied that interventions to prevent groundwater contaminating shallow soilswere not required due to the depth to groundwater reported; and
· URS was satisfied that once final finish levels were reached, the requirements would stillbe met. However, it was noted that this would need to be controlled by the LocalPlanning Authority.
It was noted in the URS certificate that should there be a significant change in thedevelopment proposal, the assessment would need to be revisited. This does not appear tohave been the case with the area developed, therefore AECOM is satisfied that the abovecertificate remains relevant.
It is noted that the Section 106 also required specific remedial actions in some areas of theApplication Site. There were no specific Remedial Actions identified in relation to Phase 26(Ref. 9), therefore this part of the Section 106 is not considered relevant to this assessment.
Development impact on risks to Controlled Waters
As discussed above, the Peak Gen area was considered to have been suitably assessedand remediated in line with the Section 106 requirements. However, the potential for thedevelopment to have altered the conceptual site model remains, particularly with respect topathways for migration of contaminants. AECOM understands that the area of theApplication Site was not used between completion of the remediation works anddevelopment of the Peak Gen facility, therefore additional sources are unlikely to have beenintroduced (assuming that where levels were built up, clean import material was used). Thefollowing points are made with respect to the potential for the development to impactpathways from the area to controlled waters receptors:
· Drainage installed was shallow with road drainage gullies designed to a depth of 0.75m(Ref. 10). This is above groundwater level and therefore unlikely to introduce pathwaysfor migration. Drainage is not required within the development compound as there is nohardstanding (Figure 3);
Technical Note
Page: 9 of 13
· The majority of services are at surface level or installed in shallow excavations (Figure 3) and therefore are expected to be above groundwater and not provide an additional migration pathway; and
· Deep foundations were not required for the development and as such would not introduce pathways between shallow and deep groundwater units.
It is not considered that the development will have substantially changed the risks to Controlled Waters and as such the previous assessments are considered to remain valid.
Figure 3: Aerial View of Completed Peak Gen Development (Screen shots taken from Ref. 10).
Use of the development – Human health receptors
Given the nature of the development, there is considered to be little potential for impact on human health receptors during the normal operation of the facility. It is noted that the Atkins assessment was based on a commercial land use relevant to the current development.
There was no substantial change in ground level with development. A survey provided by Peak Gen (Ref. 12) shows similar ground levels within and outside of the compound prior to development with these comparable ground levels being clear in Figure 3. The levels shown are up to 1.5m higher than the levels shown in the Atkins Report (Ref. 2, therefore the potential for exposure to contaminants is reduced, assuming clean import material was used.
As can be seen from the photographs in Figure 3 and Figure 4, the units are free standing and enclosed; therefore the potential for the ingress or build-up of ground gas is very limited. The comments in Table 2 with respect to ground gas are therefore not considered to be relevant.
AECOM understands that there is no drinking water provision to the facility, therefore the comments in Table 2 with respect to water supply pipes are not considered to be relevant.
Technical Note
Page: 10 of13
Figure 4: Selected Photographs Showing the Development
Appropriateness of Contamination Assessment Standards
Condition 17 requires that the following receptors are considered:
· Human health: This is considered in the Atkins assessment required under the Section106 and, as detailed in Section 4.3, is considered to be a relevant assessment;
· Ground waters and surface waters: Risks to controlled waters have been mitigated atCoed Darcy on a site wide basis through the implementation of the Remedial ActionPlan, as described in the Section 106 document. The requirement of Schedule 8 of theSection 106 agreement requires that the design and specification of any RedevelopmentRemediation Works shall take appropriate account of the principles of the RAP Worksand shall not prejudice the achievement and future sustainability of these principles andobjectives of the RAP Works or the RAP Works themselves. It is not considered that thedevelopment of Peak Gen compound would adversely impact the RAP Works;
· Adjoining land: Given the history of this part of the wider Coed Darcy site in relation toother areas (e.g. much less usage that may have resulted in contamination beingpresent), the risk posed by this area to adjoining areas is considered negligible;
· Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland, andservice lines and pipes: Given the nature of the development (Figures 3 and 4) and thatthe land was built up prior to development, the risks to property from groundcontamination is considered to be low and therefore not requiring specific assessment.Risks from ground gas and risks to water pipes are considered irrelevant to thisdevelopment;
Technical Note
Page: 11 of13
· Ecological systems: There are no significant ecological systems on site, and given thenature of this development and the Project Site history, it is not considered that thedevelopment poses a risk from ground contamination to ecology; and
· Archaeological sites and ancient monuments: Given the Application Site history as partof a former oil refinery, it is considered that this is not relevant.
Conclusions
Whilst not prepared specifically for the Peak Gen development, AECOM consider that thefollowing elements of the planning conditions are covered by previous works:
· Condition 17 (i): Requirement for a desk study. This desk study has been undertakenand has shown little site usage within the former Llandarcy refinery. It is not consideredthat the desk study would substantially change between completion of the works byAtkins and development of the Peak Gen facility;
· Condition 17 (ii): Requirement for an intrusive ground investigation. Intrusive groundinvestigation has been undertaken with results presented in the Atkins Report (Ref. ??).These are considered to be relevant to the development with no substantial change inconditions envisaged between the time of the investigation and the time of thedevelopment;
· Condition 17 (iii): Appraisal of risks to receptors. As previously discussed, the two mostrelevant receptors are controlled waters and human health. The human healthassessment is considered to have been appropriate and remains applicable to thedevelopment. AECOM does not consider that an additional level of assessment for theSection 106 agreement to be required. Risks to Controlled Waters have been mitigatedby the site-wide Remedial Action Plan outlined in the Section Agreement. Neither theredevelopment remedial works nor the redevelopment of the Peak Gen Compound hashad an adverse impact on the Remedial Action Plan;
· Condition 17 (iv) and Condition 18: Requirement for proposal of remediation andcompletion of that work. Remediation was undertaken by Atkins based on the risksidentified. AECOM considers this to be to an appropriate level and would not anticipateadditional remediation being required for this development;
· Condition 19: Requirement for a verification report. AECOM considers that the AtkinsReport for the remediation required under the Section 106 agreement provides sufficientevidence of remediation and verification of the effectiveness of that remediation insource removal; and
· Condition 20: Requirement to stop work should contamination be identified duringdevelopment. AECOM understands that no contamination was found at any time whencarrying out the development work, as stated in a letter from Jon Fairchild, Director andChief Financial Officer, Peak Gen Power Limited.
AECOM therefore consider that, based on the existing information and assessments, therequirements of the planning conditions relating to ground conditions and remediation werecomplied with.
(17) Prior to the commencement of work on site, a scheme to assess the nature and extentof any contamination on the site, and confirmation of whether or not it originates on the siteshall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Theinvestigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons in accordancewith the Land Contamination: A Guide for Developers (WLGA, WAG & EAW, July 2006) andshall be submitted as a written report, which shall include:
i. A desk top study to identify all previous uses at the site, potential contaminantsassociated with those uses, and the impacts from those contaminants on land andcontrolled waters. The desk-based study shall establish a ‘conceptual site model’(CSM) identifying all plausible pollutant linkages to be assessed;
ii. A survey of the extent, scale, and nature of contamination;
iii. An assessment of the potential risks to:
· Human health;
· Ground waters and surface waters;
· Adjoining land;
· Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets,woodland and service lines and pipes;
· Ecological systems; and
· Archaeological sites and ancient monuments; and
iv. An appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred remedial option(s).
Reason: To ensure that information provided for the assessment of the risks from landcontamination to the future users of the land, neighbouring land, controlled waters, property,and ecological systems is sufficient to enable a proper assessment.
(18) Prior to the commencement of work on site, a remediation scheme is required to bringthe site to a condition suitable for the intended uses by removing any unacceptable risks tohuman health, buildings, other property, and the natural and historical environment. Thisshall be prepared and submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.The scheme shall include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives,remediation criteria, and site management procedures. The measures proposed within theremediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with an agreed programme ofworks.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land andneighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property, andecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely withoutunacceptable risks to workers, neighbours, and other offsite receptors.
(19) Prior to beneficial use of the proposed development commencing, a verification reportdemonstrating the effectiveness of the agreed remediation works carried out in accordancewith condition (Please insert the condition number requiring remediation to be carried out)shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Technical Note
Page: 13 of13
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land andneighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property andecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely withoutunacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
(20) In the event that contamination is found at any time whilst carrying out the approveddevelopment that was not previously identified, work on site shall cease immediately andshall be reported in writing to the Local Planning Authority. A desk study, site investigation,Risk Assessment and, where necessary, a Remediation Strategy must be undertaken inaccordance with the Land Contamination: A Guide for Developers (WLGA, WAG & EAW, July2006). This document shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local PlanningAuthority. Prior to occupation of the development, a verification report demonstrating theeffectiveness of the agreed remediation, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with theLocal Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land andneighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property, andecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely withoutunacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off site receptors.
