Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2010
Got a reply to my own brief missive that I sent off this morning:
Quote:In a former life I was a building manager, and I know just how costly these investigations are.
Particularly after the site has been criss-crossed with trenches, or site stripped.
Footing excavation is no...rmally to a 1M depth. Why not inspect with building control officers.
Or is that too simple!
It is interesting that the of the comments I have received, only those with vested interests have shown alarm with no compromise.
As I matter of interest, I am going to commission a survey of all digs over a period of years, and just find out how many have yielded anything of interest.
I also intend to make my comments available to the Minister.
Based on that last sentence I'm going to guess that Eric Pickles is his idol. [FONT="][/FONT]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
23rd June 2011, 01:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 23rd June 2011, 01:41 PM by Marcus Brody.)
Further to my previous post, Policy E5 of the Fenland District-Wide Local Plan states that 'DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT NORMALLY BE PERMITTED WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT IMPORTANT SITES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE WHICH MERIT CONSERVATION FOR THEIR HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, NATURE CONSERVATION, SCIENTIFIC OR LANDSCAPE IMPORTANCE'.*
Policy E6 states that 'PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT NORMALLY BE GRANTED FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PRESERVATION OR SETTING OF AN ANCIENT MONUMENT OR OTHER IMPORTANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY WILL NORMALLY REQUIRE ALL PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON SITES OF RECOGNISED OR SUSPECTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION'.
Policy E7 says 'WHERE THERE IS NO OVER-RIDING CASE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE AND PLANNING PERMISSION IS GRANTED FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONDITIONAL UPON THE DEVELOPER MAKING SATISFACTORY PROVISION FOR THE EXCAVATION AND RECORDING OF REMAINS. SUCH EXCAVATION AND RECORDING WILL BE CARRIED OUT BEFORE DEVELOPMENT COMMENCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PROJECT BRIEF PREPARED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY, WITH ADVICE FROM THE COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGISTS, WHERE APPROPRIATE PROVISION SHALL BE MADE FOR THE SEALING AND PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT LAYERS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION'.
It's possible that the local plan may be out of date, as it was adopted in 1993, but it's still the most current available on the Council's website. There is an interim statement of proposed changes to the local plan from 2001, but it doesn't mention archaeology, so it would appear that the 1993 policies remain in effect. These would seem to be a fairly clear statement of how the Council wants archaeological material to be treated in the planning process. If the Councillor wishes to change them, he would of course be able to submit alterations for inclusion in subsequent revisions of the local plan, but these would need to be available for consultation so that other councillors / residents had the opportunity to object if they disagree with his proposals for unrestricted development. For him to suggest that the Council should simply disregard whole sections of its own policies without any public scrutiny would make a complete mockery of the idea of a planning-led system, turning it instead into a situation where issues were decided on the whim of one man.
Apologies for the policies being in uppercase - they were cut-and-pasted from the local plan and I didn't want to re-type them all.
*I found another document which indicates that Policy E5 is no longer used, but E6 and E7 are still listed as being live, and if anything, they're the two that are most relevant
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Yep. One year in and now it begins. Anyone who voted Lib-Dem please note and then go and bury your head.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Alan Melton Wrote:In a former life I was a building manager, and I know just how costly these investigations are. Particularly after the site has been criss-crossed with trenches, or site stripped.
Good for him. The thrust of his reply implies that what he really objects to is paying for the post ex reporting. The irony being that that?s where all the self aggrandisement and good PR lies for the friendly developer. Perhaps Eric Pickles should set about him with a rolled up copy of PPS5.
Alan Melton Wrote:Why not inspect with building control officers. Or is that too simple!
He appears to be yet another person who thinks that anyone can be an archaeologist. Mind you, from personal experience I?ve always wondered how difficult can it be to be a planning inspector. Maybe they?ll let archaeologists have a go at that to get them off the dole?
Alan Melton Wrote:It is interesting that the of the comments I have received, only those with vested interests have shown alarm with no compromise.
...as opposed to the ?vested interest? he represented in his address: the good developers of Cambridgeshire.
Alan Melton Wrote:As I matter of interest, I am going to commission a survey of all digs over a period of years, and just find out how many have yielded anything of interest.
Who is he planning to commission, his own HER (soon to be ex-HER if there?s nothing for them to deal with from the development sector); and can he define what he means by 'Interest'?
Alan Melton Wrote:I also intend to make my comments available to the Minister.
Perhaps he can explain how he?ll square this with local, regional and national policy on heritage while he?s at it.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Sith,
If I could, I would mark your post with a 'LIKE'.
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
Sith... a superb rebuff. I have yet to hear from him...
Imagine that... archaeologists reply to comments about archaeology being a waste of time and money... wherever next... a councillor making comments about council policy
:face-thinks:
pps Sparkey... you can... by clicking the litle thumbs up in the top right of his post... next to did you find this post helpful.!
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
23rd June 2011, 06:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 23rd June 2011, 07:00 PM by Tizzy.)
WE NEED TO ENSURE A VIGOROUS COUNTER ATTACK ON THIS COUNCILLORS ILL ADVISED COMMENTS. He is connected with the construction industry and as such has a vested interest in seeing heritage protection reforms and adherence to PPS5 removed from the processes involved in planning applications at all levels. I urge you to do as I have and send an email to his personal & official email addresses and contact the newspaper concerned to express sensible opposition to this mans 'rantings'. If we allow this to go unchallenged then we will be complicit in the potential destruction of our already fragile industry. The IFA has issued a counter statement but from a personal point I do not believe this is sufficient to dampen the spirits of a man who quite clearly has thrown the gauntlet down. I heard from a source connected closely with to the government (about 4 weeks ago) that they were going to remove heritage protections in order to kick-start the economy; this could be a local councillor being used to set a precedent via the backdoor! Let it go and we could be kissing all our careers, not jobs, goodbye.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
This is it people - Do Something! .... and heritage policies are the most peripheral of the Measures being planned by Government-Corporate Mafia.
Start resisting now, or live in miserable regret.
support J30, and all other grass roots movements opposed to International Banking and Corporate Interests making Slaves of us all!
...."A Society Fit To Do Archaeology In"
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/sites/www.brit...policy.pdf
The following link will take you to the CBA/IFA/EH reply to the councillor's keynote speech: have a read!
