Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
18th August 2009, 05:36 PM
Hello misty.
From the application site it is hard to tell if the curators have asked for any archaeological predetermination work. Its often noticeable on planning web pages that the environmental reports are put forward, this one has got a bat, veg. and Habitat survey but no mention of archaeology. Maybe seeing as you are a local you might like to Submit a Comment and asking if there is any predetermination and asking if you can see it before the application is decided??its would be like being an unpaid curator, you might like to get involved in the politics of it all and then you might find that there is money init.
Stevy and Historic Hello bureaucrats. I am going to huff and puff until I get my post ex, you don?t know what a reserved matter is., if its in the wsi you had better, better, you, you, enforcement teams.
Sorry I will just go back and read a very short and obscure document called peepee some number apparently it?s a guidance mentions something called a report and preservation by record, nothing about having a whole university department of specialists sitting around an expensive office expecting jobs for life and a pension of the backs of the diggers.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
18th August 2009, 05:50 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Unitof1
Hello misty.
From the application site it is hard to tell if the curators have asked for any archaeological predetermination work. Its often noticeable on planning web pages that the environmental reports are put forward, this one has got a bat, veg. and Habitat survey but no mention of archaeology. Maybe seeing as you are a local you might like to Submit a Comment and asking if there is any predetermination and asking if you can see it before the application is decided??its would be like being an unpaid curator, you might like to get involved in the politics of it all and then you might find that there is money init.
Stevy and Historic Hello bureaucrats. I am going to huff and puff until I get my post ex, you don?t know what a reserved matter is., if its in the wsi you had better, better, you, you, enforcement teams.
Sorry I will just go back and read a very short and obscure document called peepee some number apparently it?s a guidance mentions something called a report and preservation by record, nothing about having a whole university department of specialists sitting around an expensive office expecting jobs for life and a pension of the backs of the diggers.
Hi
Perhaps its better if you don't show your ignorance of planning legislation in this way as your clients may be upset to know you appear to be confused about reserved matters (which are a set of matters put aside for later consideration to obtain outline permission) and conditions which are placed on permissions, which, if undressed invalidates the permission.
As for the other part of your incoherent rambling ... when are you going to get over your messiah/victim complex?
Steven
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
18th August 2009, 06:10 PM
so archaeology is not a matter for reserved matters application then?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
18th August 2009, 07:33 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Unitof1
so archaeology is not a matter for reserved matters application then?
Hi
In effect no, a reserved matter application only deals with access, appearance, layout and scale. Conditions on reserved matters have to specifically relate to, Permitted Development Restrictions, Further design details / materials and Access detail. It is not open for the Local Planning Authority to consider matters, in principle, that should have been considered earlier, and any conditions may only be appropriate to the matters "reserved" for later approval.
Steven
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
19th August 2009, 12:28 AM
but which includes bats and veg and habitatersa and normaly comes after an Outline application....and then there is the pre-application consultation which now involves a form and a charge (ex vat-why?)(not sure what the charge is for) but no mention of archaeologyouiy.....as i SAID TO MISTY who is not in work at the mo, worth making a comment on the application about; hay pah
blinking blimy no mention of any of this in ppeeppeGee something or other
Quote:quote:it does give enforcement teams something concrete to follow.
as in wall following
Quote:quote: one authority has prematurely discharged a condition such that the developer has
reneged on px funding and is potentially defending a charge of negligence
just whos is potentially bringing the charge eh
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
19th August 2009, 11:00 AM
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
19th August 2009, 02:32 PM
Uo1
'Sorry I will just go back and read a very short and obscure document called peepee some number apparently it?s a guidance mentions something called a report and preservation by record, nothing about having a whole university department of specialists sitting around an expensive office expecting jobs for life and a pension of the backs of the diggers.'
If you are going to quote PPG16 then please read it first.
paragraph 25 (d)Arrangements For Preservation By Record Including Farming:
'Such excavation and recording should be carried out before development commences, working to a project brief prepared by the planning authority and taking advice from archaeological consultants. This can be achieved through agreements reached between the developer, the archaeologist and the planning authority. Such agreements should also provide for the subsequent publication of the results of the excavation. In the absence of such agreements planning authorities can secure excavation and recording by imposing conditions.'
And before you attempt to argue that the final sentence does not mention publication please take note of the rest of the text where it makes it clear that agreements to record by preservation should also provide for the publication of the results. The conditions are imposed where such agreements cannot be reached and therefore are a formal way of ensuring that excavation and recording take place as they would if there was an agreement. Hence the requirement for the agreement to provide for the publication of the results will form part of the condition.
You are not the only mad archaeologist out there and slips like this do nothing for the reputation of all the other deranged people who do check the fine print.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
20th August 2009, 02:18 PM
So all and any archaeological conditions on a planning decision must result in publication.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
20th August 2009, 02:34 PM
That is a very awkward phrase and I suspect is meant more to confuse the issue that to move the debate on.
To be pedantic, no. An archaeological condition on a planning permission will not require publication as the condition is just that, a condition on the permission that must be fulfilled in order for the permission to be valid. It is not the condition that needs to be published it is the results of the fieldwork carried out in order to satisfy that condition that should be published.
If a developer, who has been granted planning permission with a condition requiring archaeological work, chooses not to carry out the scheme for some reason, lets say for the sake of argument he cannot start the development due to personal ill health, then he will not have any requirement to publish anything. Despite the fact he has an archaeological condition attached to his planning permission. Hence why I feel your question is very badly worded.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
20th August 2009, 03:54 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by afarensis
That is a very awkward phrase and I suspect is meant more to confuse the issue that to move the debate on.
To be pedantic, no. An archaeological condition on a planning permission will not require publication as the condition is just that, a condition on the permission that must be fulfilled in order for the permission to be valid. It is not the condition that needs to be published it is the results of the fieldwork carried out in order to satisfy that condition that should be published.
If a developer, who has been granted planning permission with a condition requiring archaeological work, chooses not to carry out the scheme for some reason, lets say for the sake of argument he cannot start the development due to personal ill health, then he will not have any requirement to publish anything. Despite the fact he has an archaeological condition attached to his planning permission. Hence why I feel your question is very badly worded.
Surely what Herr Unit means is that it reads a little as if every piece of archaeological work carried out as part of a condition on a planning application should be expected to be published, not the condition itself. Although I for one can't wait until 'Planning Conditions Monthly' goes into production!
I assume, and going on my own experiences, that is obviously not the case, but the wording is a little unhelpful.
|
