Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
14th August 2011, 04:08 PM
In The Times of 13th August 2011 Gryff Rys Jones, in relation to the proposed draft planning rules and in the context of the ?Localism Bill?
?Each area, each town, each community (they mean the council) must draw up a plan detailing where development will happen.
It is the authentic voice of the bully. We are going to hit you, it says. We will have lots more development. You decide where. Do you want us to desecrate your parks, your terraces, your high street, your suburbs or your green belt? If you can?t make up your mind, we will go ahead anyway without consulting you at all.
With a presumption in favour of development the Government is opening the way for anybody to trash the country. Any lawyer could drive a bulldozer through the flimsy codicils put up to defend ?quality? in the draft.
None of us can afford to ??. ignore this outbreak of vandalism.?
Sounds like us as well!
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
16th August 2011, 01:08 PM
Hmm.........sounds like doom-saying to me.....and beefed up a bit for the press.
It could be like that.........in fact in some cases the existing legislation results in the same.
But it equally may not be the case. As it still depends on Local Planning authorities (as I understand it).
The words 'presumption in favour of development' are just that.........scary words........ as I understand it it is still just a guide, and the decisions still rests with Local Planning authorities? Or am I missing something?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
16th August 2011, 01:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 16th August 2011, 01:52 PM by Sith.)
Jack Wrote:I understand it it is still just a guide, and the decisions still rests with Local Planning authorities? Or am I missing something?
Possibly the latter. For 'Local Planning Authority' read 'planning committees made up of the likes of Councillor Melton', who believe that the presumption in favour of development trumps all other arguments. They are not obliged to take the advice of any of their specialists, be they archaeologists or planners so expect a lot more tat that no-one can afford to buy, coming soon to a prime development plot near you.
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: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
17th August 2011, 12:34 PM
Ah but it states that the local planning committees must adhere to the local authority's plan, and they still must follow the general guidelines.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
17th August 2011, 01:11 PM
That's true but they are still just 'guidelines'. I'm not sure how resistant they will be to pressure to presume in favour of development if they feel they can argue that the need for growth outweighs the need to conserve heritage (or anything else inconvenient).
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: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
18th August 2011, 12:44 PM
As I understand it the presumption in favour of development applies if there is no reason not to. If there is a reason it doesn't apply.
Which will make it more difficult to push for archaeological works if there is no known archaeology within the development footprint.
However experienced DBA writers wont find it any more difficult to prove the potential for unexpected archaeological remains to be encountered.
But again this relies on the county archaeological teams being on the ball and knocking back DBA's that don't properly consider the potential for unexpected archaeological remains within the development
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
18th August 2011, 08:31 PM
As a slight aside, does anyone know whether, if a wall has traditionally (last 80 or 90 years) been used as a backdrop for group photographs, this would be considered under PPS5 to enhance its value as a 'heritage asset' - bit wierd but one worth considering in DBAs when straw clutching? :face-thinks:
[as it happens the wall in question's late 17th century and listed anyway]
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
19th August 2011, 11:57 AM
...Or been in a film? Certain car parks spring to mind
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
20th August 2011, 12:19 PM
Jack Wrote:...Or been in a film? Certain car parks spring to mind
If anyone offers to sell you a brick, be very, very suspicious! :0
Did the American remake have a scene in an equally iconic 1960s parking structure?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
20th August 2011, 03:20 PM
Jack Wrote:Ah but it states that the local planning committees must adhere to the local authority's plan, and they still must follow the general guidelines.
And for me herein lies the problem, NPPF assumes that the LPAs should set out a strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment in their local plans, but these Local Plans were written on the basis that there was a national planning policy statement (PPS 5 for heritage). The NPPF assumes that the detail of heritage issues will be considered in the local plan, but the local plan was written on the basis that such detail was addressed at a national level - what I fear we are looking at is a policy vacuum.
