+- 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: New PPS Consultation Document (/showthread.php?tid=1699)
New PPS Consultation Document - Paul Belford - 24th July 2009
is here:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/consultationhistoricpps
New PPS Consultation Document - BAJR Host - 24th July 2009
and about time too
Constant development is the law of life, and a man who always tries to maintain his dogmas in order to appear consistent drives himself into a false position.
Mohandas Gandhi
New PPS Consultation Document - kevin wooldridge - 25th July 2009
There are many things to like about the document. It is good that HERs appear to gain mandatory status (although the caveat that authorities dont need to maintain an HER merely have access to one seems a little odd); it is also good that every planning authority should engage an archaeological advisor (although these can be consultancy rather than 'in-house' posts).
I am a little confused by the last section HE13.3
Where a decision has been made that will result in the loss of the whole or a material part of an asset?s significance, local planning authorities should ensure that developers maximise opportunities to advance understanding of the asset?s significance before this is lost. Developers should publish the outcomes of such investigations and the advancement in understanding that those results bring. They
should deposit copies of the reports with the relevant historic environment record. They should also offer the archive generated to a local museum or other public depository. Where appropriate, local planning authorities should impose planning conditions or obligations to ensure such work is carried out before commencement of the development.
Does that mean what I think it means? Publication prior to commencement of a development. Surely not practical....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
New PPS Consultation Document - mercenary - 26th July 2009
I'm assuming the "where appropriate" phrase leaves more than enough wriggle room so that it never actually happens.
New PPS Consultation Document - YellowPete - 26th July 2009
and we thought we were pressed b4
it sounds more like a WE MEAN IT STATEMENT.
OH DEAR[:I]
txt is
Mike
New PPS Consultation Document - tom wilson - 27th July 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge
...the caveat that authorities dont need to maintain an HER merely have access to one seems a little odd...[/i]
Borsetshire HER Services Ltd.?
New PPS Consultation Document - Oxbeast - 27th July 2009
Perhaps it refers to HERs run by organisations which are not necessarily the planning authority, although they can have input in the planning process. The National Trust and most (perhaps all) National Parks have HERs, and Defence Estates runs one. I would like to have HERs statutory, and more importantly, the HER officer.
New PPS Consultation Document - tom wilson - 27th July 2009
It seems to leave the door open to the idea of private HER services, which is an interesting concept. We all know how much goverments like privatising and Public-Private Partnerships. I bet private HERs would be more customer-oriented (profit being the sole motivator), which might benefit their users; but would they maintain the same standards and keep up to date?
I'm just prodding the possibilities of the legislation; how do others feel? I still agree with Beast that Counties need their own statutory Mounties.
New PPS Consultation Document - 1man1desk - 27th July 2009
There are a lot of circumstances in which it is perfectly reasonable for planning authorities not to maintain their own HER, as long as they have access to one.
The first and most common one is that, of course, most HERs are traditionally maintained at County level, whereas most planning authorities are Districts. Several Districts are usually covered by one County HER, rather than each maintaining their own.
In Scotland, however, all planning authorities are Unitary. Last time I looked, there were some parts of the country where one Unitary authority maintains an HER that covers a wider area, providing the service to neighbouring authorities at a cost.
In the past, in England, there have been circumstances where authorities bought in HER services from private companies. For instance, Babtie Group used to run the Berkshire SMR, and after the break-up of the county several of the successor unitary authorities continued to buy the service for some time. I don't know of anywhere that is doing this at present, but as far as I am aware it worked fairly well (as well as most authority-run HERs and better than some that I could mention), and I can't see any reason other than ideaology why it couldn't be done again.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
New PPS Consultation Document - Windbag - 27th July 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by tom wilson
It seems to leave the door open to the idea of private HER services, which is an interesting concept. We all know how much goverments like privatising and Public-Private Partnerships. I bet private HERs would be more customer-oriented (profit being the sole motivator), which might benefit their users; but would they maintain the same standards and keep up to date?
I'm just prodding the possibilities of the legislation; how do others feel? I still agree with Beast that Counties need their own statutory Mounties.
There are a couple of Scottish Unitary Authorities that have contracted out their SMR/HERs to an archaeological unit. I haven't heard any feedback from other units regarding the quality of data and level of service. However, I would imagine that they aren't the worst-run SMRs/HERs in Scotland.