Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
7th February 2012, 07:40 PM
My understanding of the National Planning Policy Framework is that it will rely heavily on an updated version of the 'local plan'. This is the part where the Tories claim local communities can influence the kind of planning in their area, although once you get beyond the inclusion and definition for green-belt, conservation areas, prioritty zones, economic development zones etc etc (all diktat from above), its hard to see how much room there is for local influence. My understanding of the broader issues behind the Manchester case are that the University disposing of its role in this isn't necesarily a bad thing (nor after getting rid of the digging arm of the service 2 years back entirely unexpected). Question is who, if anyone, will step in to pick up the pieces.
Might it be hoped that English Heritage could step in and set up a system similar to that which is currently in place in London and provide an archaeological advisory service? The fact that the neighbouring Merseyside authorities also seem bereft of an advisory service suggest a North West version of GLAAS could be one effective solution.....never really understood why some of England's richest boroughs in London get so much 'goodwill' from EH and the poorer regions get next to nowt....(Yeah I know its historical....)
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
7th February 2012, 08:11 PM
NWAAS: doesn't trip off the tongue but it's not a bad idea. I like the GLAAS set-up, personally. A similar framework exists in the West of Scotland (WOSAS), and probably other places (anyone care to enlighten me?). Of course, such an organisation in the North West of England would still have to be funded..
Kev I assume you are referring to the Localism Act, which I'd forgotten about (I didn't give it much thought last year as it looked more like a Developer's Charter than anything for local people). It's a big and complex document, and there might be opportunities for heritage protection within it (e.g. local lists and Neighbourhood Planning Authorities), but it's not of use in opposing the cuts in Manchester. It's very much part of the Big Society agenda, so it's designed to give communities the powers to 'do it themselves' without any hope of assistance from a council heritage advisor.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
7th February 2012, 08:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 7th February 2012, 08:50 PM by Wax.)
Though GMAU will cease to exist on the 31st of March my understanding is that there is a commitment for an archaeology service in the region and negotiations are on going. What is up for debate is the form that service will take and what interim service (if any) will be put in place to fill the gap between the end of the old and the begining of the new.
The longer the region is without a service the less the chance of the new service being of the same standard as the old. There is also the chance of important planning decisions being made without archaeological input in the interim period.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
7th February 2012, 09:04 PM
I think Wax might have hit upon the 'default' way to make a point about whats going on in Manchester. Visit any( or all) of the 10 planning offices after 31st of March and raise an objection if there isn't a satisfactory consideration of the archaeological or heritage component of any development. Objecting is free and guaranteed to piss off both the planning officer and the developer if the objection is based upon a material consideration that has been overlooked either by the applicant or the planning authority. And keep on objecting until the archaeological advice situation is resolved to your satisfaction...every objection has to be logged and responded to!!
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
7th February 2012, 10:29 PM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:I think Wax might have hit upon the 'default' way to make a point about whats going on in Manchester. Visit any( or all) of the 10 planning offices after 31st of March and raise an objection if there isn't a satisfactory consideration of the archaeological or heritage component of any development. Objecting is free and guaranteed to piss off both the planning officer and the developer if the objection is based upon a material consideration that has been overlooked either by the applicant or the planning authority. And keep on objecting until the archaeological advice situation is resolved to your satisfaction...every objection has to be logged and responded to!!
The 10 unitary bodies that make up Greater Manchester are Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside, Trafford, Salford, Stockport and Wigan. Most planning applications can be viewed and commented on on-line.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
8th February 2012, 11:52 AM
Quote:And keep on objecting until the archaeological advice situation is resolved to
your satisfaction...every objection has to be logged and responded
to!!
do I hear a penny dropping? Any objection should also ask what information showing archaeological consideration was supplied with the planning application and cite PPS5 for this requirement.
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
8th February 2012, 06:05 PM
Tom
Think you forgot the all important Water Act? - amazing how much archaeological work that has generated over the years!
