+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Planning disaster (/showthread.php?tid=397)
Planning disaster - drpeterwardle - 23rd January 2007
It is actually 8 weeks for a minor application and 13 weeks for a major one.
I can accept what you are saying however. Particularly as archaeological infomation is not on the list of complusory infomation to submit.
The worst example I have come across is for applications for historic and listed building where a conservation statement or COBRA is not required but a highways and ecology report are.
The point is that is can take a month for an application to be registered at present.
I suspect the problem lies with the fact that archaeologists are normally regarded as consultees rather then people within the planning department. By the time they have been sent the documents then we are already a few weeks into the process and there are just days for an evaluation to be undertaken and then reported on is the deadline for the report to commitee is to be met.
I have to say I think the recent changes have in fact been counter productive for both sides.
Peter Wardle
Planning disaster - m300572 - 23rd January 2007
I'd agree that the location of archaeologists outside the planning departments means that we areseen as consultees- even in counties where the LPAs pay the costs of the planning archaeologist they don't necessarily view their bit of the post as part of their corganisation and it is difficult for the archaeologist to trolley round all the LPAs on a regular basis so they know who he/she is and what the role is - I don't think many panning officers are really up to speed on archaeology in the planning process and getting them to allocate CPD time to it is a struggle (imn my experience).
The problems with incomplete applications being registered is common - applications for Listed Building work is particularly bad in this respect and is exacerbated becaseu there is not a culture of archaeological recording among conservation officers - some ofthem work on the basis that is a listed building needs recording then the archaeologists will tell them, rather than being engaged from the start withthe owner/developer to ensure that its done properly .
Planning disaster - 1man1desk - 23rd January 2007
I recently asked curators in 12 different counties about their influence on the planning decision process.
None of them had ever asked the local authority to refuse planning permission on archaeological grounds, except where the reason was failure to provide information (i.e. a DBA and/or an evaluation). In all cases, they were happy to remove the recommendation for refusal if the developer produced the information.
In all cases, whenever they recommended an archaeological planning condition, the local authority had always imposed that condition.
The majority of the curators were happy with the support they get from the local authority. The local authorities nearly always went along with the recommendations of the curators.
Having said that, I am aware of a recent case in another county where an archaeological planning condition was requested but not imposed - in that case, the authority forgot(!) to impose any planning conditions (i.e. they omitted them all, not just the archaeological one). Nevertheless, the developer (a commercial organisation) went ahead and commissioned the archaeological mitigation work previously proposed, although they were under no obligation to do so.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Planning disaster - mercenary - 24th January 2007
Dr Pete wrote:
Quote:quote:It is actually 8 weeks for a minor application and 13 weeks for a major one.I was speaking to a curator last spring who, if memory serves, claimed they were being pressured to turn around applications in 4 weeks. Is that possible?
Planning disaster - drpeterwardle - 24th January 2007
The minimum time for an application is three (in practice four) weeks. This is the period allowed for stat consultations.
I suspect in fact that this will be quite common under the current regime. The scenario is LPA almost happy about an application but there is not enough time to amend the application and reconsult.
They ask the applicant to withdraw and then resubmit in order that they can meet their targets.
Peter
Planning disaster - Curator Kid - 25th January 2007
Quote:quote:Originally posted by mercenary
I was speaking to a curator last spring who, if memory serves, claimed they were being pressured to turn around applications in 4 weeks. Is that possible?
Each application from a district comes with a covering letter - "I am anxious to obtain your observations on this application and would appreciate your comments within X working days from the date of this letter If I do not hear from you, I will assume you have no comments to make", or something similar. The standard consultation period we ask for is 21 working days, although some only offer 15. As a matter of interest, the letter I just copied that quote from is only giving me 10 working days. Considering it took three days to reach me from when it was sent, that doesn't give me long as you can see. [xx(]
Planning disaster - Unitof1 - 25th January 2007
wouldnât introducing e-mail revolutionise the system? Or could you try -If I do not receive an application giving me 21 days consideration, I will assume you have automatically put a full archaeological excavation condition on the application unless I otherwise instruct
Planning disaster - m300572 - 25th January 2007
There is a theoretical time frame and an actual time frame - I have, in the past, sent my usual consultation response within the timeframe given by the LPA and found that the planning officer had already determined the case under delegated powers! e-mail does speed thing up - if you can mail the planning technician a list of apps you want to look at it saves a couple of days transit time. If all LPAs put all thier planning apps on line it would speed thing up even more.
Forgetting to put on conditions is relatively commoin. As is puttingthe first condition in the letter on and ignoring the second condition (I once lost a late medieval site afte the planning officer took it on himself to decide that the applicant had 'done enough' by recording the building on the site prior to and during its demolition. If I had realise what an idiot he was I 'd have let the building go (it was only recorded in case there was some early fabric surviving in it by some chance) and done the work on the archaeology. Again, fortunately the developer had funded the evaluation costs into his development and spent the money on WB recording even although he could have totally ignored the whole issue becaseu of no condition!
Planning disaster - drpeterwardle - 25th January 2007
Unit of 1 said,
"wouldnât introducing e-mail revolutionise the system? Or could you try -If I do not receive an application giving me 21 days consideration, I will assume you have automatically put a full archaeological excavation condition on the application unless I otherwise instruct"
1. The planning system utilises emails and the internet to a very high degree. It can be almost paperless.
2. Suggesting that a full excavation condition is put on every application would be expensive for the LPAs and entirely counter productive. (It would be great for consultants like me sorting out the mess). A planning condition can only be used if without it the planning application would be refused.
Peter Wardle
Planning disaster - historic building - 27th January 2007
I can only think of two occasions where I have recommended an application be rejected for buried archaeology reasons. In both cases these related to human remains known to be on site and that the applications conflicted with burial laws.