Appeal 3307909

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed development, a single storey rear extension, was approved by the Council in July 2022. Given the history of the wider site, the Council considered it necessary to impose a condition to require the preparation of a management plan in relation to contamination. While the decision notice does not include a reason for imposing the condition, the justification is set out within the Council’s statement. The appellant has argued that the condition is not necessary. As such, the main issue is whether the condition is necessary, having regard to the management of any on-site contamination.

The Council’s statement sets out that the appeal site is located on a former industrial site known as ‘Lessers’, and that remediation work was undertaken prior to housing being constructed in order to minimise the risk of dangerous chemicals being disturbed. A risk assessment produced by Argyll Environmental Limited, dated September 2019, concluded that the overall risk associated with the site is very low. However, as part of the Council’s consideration of the application, the Environmental Health team were consulted. In addition, the Council has also provided comments from their retained consultants, WPA Environmental, in relation to the proposed development. The comments identify that any invasive ground works on the appeal site, such as those proposed, could risk breaching the capping layer that was inserted as part of the previous remediation works, and that any breach could risk disturbance of harmful chemicals.

As such, it was recommended that a condition be imposed to require, prior to commencement of development, the preparation of a management plan to ensure that previous remediation works are not compromised. The condition sets out the information that the management plan should cover. This includes an assessment of potential contamination on site, any required remediation works, and the implementation of such works. It also sets out what must happen should contamination be encountered during construction.

The appellant has suggested that previous works to the property, including a side extension and conservatory were not subject to a similar condition and that no contamination was found on site. They have also provided evidence to set out that similar development proposals nearby have also not been subject to the same requirement. However, while I don’t have full details of those schemes before me, the fact that such a condition was not imposed previously does not mean that it is not necessary in this instance, or indeed for similar schemes in future. While a property search has been undertaken, this doesn’t sufficiently mitigate the risk identified.

There are trees in the area, including very close to the appeal site, the roots of which could have breached the capping layer. However, this is a natural occurrence which is difficult to mitigate against. Where building works are proposed, greater control and caution can be exercised.

[name] to the appellant’s statement sets out the work that was undertaken to remediate the site. Even if it were the case that most of the contamination was located away from the appeal site, remediation work was still considered necessary across the whole site. In this instance, the purpose of the condition is to ensure that the remediation work that took place is not compromised.

Having had regard to all of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that it is prudent to take a precautionary approach in this instance, and that the preparation of a management plan would greatly reduce the risk of any harm being caused by the invasive ground works that are proposed. Having considered the tests set out in paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework, I therefore conclude that the condition is necessary, having regard to the management of any on-site contamination.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.