The following warnings occurred: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warning [2] Undefined array key "avatartype" - Line: 783 - File: global.php PHP 8.0.30 (Linux)
|
Localism Bill ? Committee (9th Day) (19 Jul 2011) - Printable Version +- 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: Localism Bill ? Committee (9th Day) (19 Jul 2011) (/showthread.php?tid=4024) |
Localism Bill ? Committee (9th Day) (19 Jul 2011) - BAJR - 22nd July 2011 Localism Bill ? Committee (9th Day) (19 Jul 2011) [INDENT] Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: ...planning policy statement 5 on planning for the historic environment was introduced in March 2010. In the short period since, it has worked extremely successfully and has been supported by the heritage and development sectors. The Heritage Alliance, to which I alluded earlier, is responding separately to the Department for Communities and Local Government on the content of the NPPF.... More... and Localism Bill ? Committee (9th Day) (Continued) (19 Jul 2011) [INDENT] Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: ...with the amendments of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, although it is on a rather different theme. I believe that this amendment has the support of most of those concerned with the cultural heritage of this country, and certainly of those concerned with the understanding of the prehistoric and early historic past of our land. It is needed to ensure that the Bill ensures that... More... [/INDENT] [/INDENT]Lord Renfrew presses amendment to Localism Bill : pre app and statutory HERs but the door is closed by Lord Shutt. (oh the Irony!) Quote:Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Conservative) [INDENT] [/INDENT]Read it again.. it can't be more clear and reasonable Quote:These obligations do not appear on the face of the Bill and it seems very desirable that they should do so. It seems that as part of the new neighbourhood development plan process there will be no opportunity to carry out pre-application assessment in the same way as for other development under the normal planning application process. This is all the more serious since most archaeological sites are undesignated; that is, they are not scheduled monuments or otherwise protected. This point was discussed earlier in relation to Amendment 145B. This leaves a glaring loophole in the Bill. and the support? Quote:Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) and the response Quote:Amendment 153B would compel developers through statute to consider heritage matters at pre-application stage. That would duplicate existing national planning policy and go far beyond the original intention of the provision. Should the need to set up further procedural requirements arise in future, new Section 61Y sets out a power to make supplementary regulations about consultation procedures. The Government would consider carefully the impact of introducing any additional prescription to the policy through those regulation-making powers. PPS5 is becoming unworkable before it even gets a chance to work? or am I wrong? Am I right in considering this is the way of things to come, where planning officers use out of date HER databases to push through an algorithim that proposes if an area sits in a buffer zone, then decides whether the application of archaeology condition may stifile development, and anyway, not sure what it is they are looking for, so will just put on a standard clause for a thing called a watching Brief, sounds good.. brief - sounds quick.. and if they just watch, then that won't be too bad? :0 I wish I was joking, but I speak from experience of a battle with a planner who refused to acccept advice from me as the development control archaeologist (he did like reminding me about how he coould ignore my advice) and placed a watching Brief condition on a 500 house development - and better than that... only if the developer spotted something worth watching! - Reason... this is development not an episode of time team Will look out for and report on the CBA / TAF /IfA responses |