Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
19th October 2005, 06:33 PM
When PPG 16 was introduced it was decided that no new leglislation was neccessary simply existing law to be applied more widely.
You dont actually appeal against PPG 16 just the planning decision and there have been many examples of this happening. Appeal decision donmt create precedent. There have been appeals about preservation in situ for example which are detailed in Smith and Pugh and some other key cases.
Somebody once appealed successfuly that because the costs of archaeology was so high the planning condition requiring archaeology was unreasonable.
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
20th October 2005, 10:07 AM
I was looking for appeals against the actual use of PPG16, rather than planning appeals against how it is used.
I've not been a curator long but it seems a case of when, rather than if, someone tries to appeal against one of my conditions, but I wouldn't expect anyone to appeal against the use of PPG16 in the first place.
Where?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
20th October 2005, 10:46 AM
[url][/url]http://www.wac.uct.ac.za/wac4/symposia/papers/s110crt1.pdf
"Local government bodies can, however, choose not to implement PPG16." (p1) - keep in mind the date of the text too: 1999.
I would hope that the Structure Plans produced by most councils would prevent such flimsy application of PPG16, but it does appear unnerving. On the plus side, I've yet to come across a council that hasn't applied PPG16 as a baseline. Does anyone know if the case referenced in the paper still applies?
(I really have worked in the field)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
31st October 2005, 02:15 PM
We hear a lot of complaint about PPG16, and it certainly has faults, but I reckon its influence has been overwhelmingly for the better. Key benefits:
1 - the people proposing to damage the archaeology have to provide info about it, and have to pay for any excavation etc. This is fair, but also means that they are more likely to take it into account in their decision-making.
2 - the scale of archaeological work required in advance of development went up by an order of magnitude after PPG16. I remember a salutory experience when writing up a PPG16 mitigation dig; all the published parallels were pre-PPG16, and the publicly-funded mitigation done was less than a developer would often do now as an evaluation.
3 - it is now much more likely that the most important sites will be avoided. This is why most evaluations and watching briefs are so unproductive and boring for the participants.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
1st November 2005, 11:35 PM
Think it`s high time that PPG16 was filed in a very dark dungeon under the heading "oops". Seen plenty of extremely important sites hacked by muppets.PPG 16 only requires the developer to carry out the minimum required.Is this the legacy we are willing to leave for future generations? The rate at which development is carried out today would surely call for an extremely desperate overhaul of this current heritage ethic.PPG 16 has more loopeholes in it than Bliars propoganda. Whilst I concede that it was an improvement in its time-that was years ago.Have said this time and time again-ppg 16 says "compromise" once. In practise, after countless "compromises", at the point of trowel-it`s barely recognisable.The bare,minimalist,shaved,overly compromised result is that the archaeology is shafted.For profit.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
3rd November 2005, 11:06 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
Think it`s high time that PPG16 was filed in a very dark dungeon under the heading "oops". Seen plenty of extremely important sites hacked by muppets.PPG 16 only requires the developer to carry out the minimum required.Is this the legacy we are willing to leave for future generations? The rate at which development is carried out today would surely call for an extremely desperate overhaul of this current heritage ethic.PPG 16 has more loopeholes in it than Bliars propoganda. Whilst I concede that it was an improvement in its time-that was 25 years ago.Have said this time and time again-ppg 16 says "compromise" once. In practise, after countless "compromises", at the point of trowel-it`s barely recognisable.The bare,minimalist,shaved,overly compromised result is that the archaeology is shafted.For profit.
Even if they started thinking about it now, it would probably be a decade before any new legislation would be drafted, just look at the delays imposed on the new scheduling legislation (as far as I know it is posponed indefinitely).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
3rd November 2005, 11:54 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
Think it`s high time that PPG16 was filed in a very dark dungeon under the heading "oops". Seen plenty of extremely important sites hacked by muppets.PPG 16 only requires the developer to carry out the minimum required.Is this the legacy we are willing to leave for future generations? The rate at which development is carried out today would surely call for an extremely desperate overhaul of this current heritage ethic.PPG 16 has more loopeholes in it than Bliars propoganda. Whilst I concede that it was an improvement in its time-that was 25 years ago.Have said this time and time again-ppg 16 says "compromise" once. In practise, after countless "compromises", at the point of trowel-it`s barely recognisable.The bare,minimalist,shaved,overly compromised result is that the archaeology is shafted.For profit.
25 years? It was introduced in 1991. I reckon that is 14 years. I've worked either side of that watershed and have seen many changes. It's not perfect but our continental colleagues look on with envy. In my area whole periods now have archaeological representation - pre-PPG15/16 there were no Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Anglo-Saxon (settlement)sites. A return to pre-PPG times would decimate the archaeological profession, literally.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
3rd November 2005, 02:05 PM
Quote:quote:Think it`s high time that PPG16 was filed in a very dark dungeon under the heading "oops".
- posted by Troll
Quite happy to see improvements, reform or replacement of PPG16 with something better - but don't throw it away just because it doesn't do everything you would like.
PPG16 may be getting a bit long in the tooth, but it is still the best tool we have ever had for improving the treatment and consideration of archaeology in England. If you think it could be better - don't condemn what we already have, come up with positive suggestions for improvement instead, and then campaign for them.
Troll, there's a topic for your letters to MPs; but please don't tell them that PPG16 is no good - that is just a recipe for abolition, not reform! Just tell them how it could be better.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
3rd November 2005, 02:42 PM
Quote:quote:
25 years? It was introduced in 1991. I reckon that is 14 years.
Oops, not thinking straight [:I] You'd have thought I could remember that given how often I quote/reference it 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
4th November 2005, 09:57 PM
1man1desk-agreed.
I just find it mind-boggling that 16 was introduced simply as guidence.Equally hideous is the fact that it placed no new obligations on local authorities.In the final paragraph, "compromise" is the key term.How naive could one get? I do agree though, with most of you who say 16 is a huge improvement from the bad old days-I particularly capitulate in the face of comments from Achingknees.What I will say though is that the overall ethic behind 16 is morally wrong and, in practise, is nothing short of a limp cop-out on the part of central Government and speaking as a member of the public-a national shame.
|
