21st April 2009, 08:46 PM
Apologies for any eggs that I am distributing on this matter.
Confusion arises, I believe, in how you regard PPG16. All the PPG documents are guidelines. In other words, what they seek to do is outline processes that achieve, aid or satisfy the planning process - and can give the impression that some aspects are optional; unfortunately, as guidelines, they are not written in legalese and open to misunderstanding/misapplication. They are not, however, protocols or enacted, either under new legislation, primary acts, enabling acts or as statutory instruments amending earlier legislation/schedules etc, issued by the relevant secretary of state (in this case the former Deputy PM's office and now the Dept for Communities and Local Government), and thus not strictly speaking legally 'enforcable'. Satisfying planning specifications are a legal requirement and the inclusion of the assessment of potential archaeological remains as a 'material consideration' is thus brought in and consequently legally 'enforcable'; planning permission can be refused if the aassessment has not be made and or failure to provide the results of an assessment (see Sections 18 to 22 link - http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicatio...ding/ppg16). So although PPG16 is only a guideline, the provisions for which it is used are governed by various pieces of legislation etc.
Returning to the original point, whether the persons actually undertaking the assessment should be members of the IfA, this is not a requirement that can be enforced by the local plannning authority. All the developer needs to do is to ensure they employ a professionally qualified archaeological organisation or consultant (PPG16 - Para 20)
If I remain confused, it's because it's my natural state... :face-huh:
Confusion arises, I believe, in how you regard PPG16. All the PPG documents are guidelines. In other words, what they seek to do is outline processes that achieve, aid or satisfy the planning process - and can give the impression that some aspects are optional; unfortunately, as guidelines, they are not written in legalese and open to misunderstanding/misapplication. They are not, however, protocols or enacted, either under new legislation, primary acts, enabling acts or as statutory instruments amending earlier legislation/schedules etc, issued by the relevant secretary of state (in this case the former Deputy PM's office and now the Dept for Communities and Local Government), and thus not strictly speaking legally 'enforcable'. Satisfying planning specifications are a legal requirement and the inclusion of the assessment of potential archaeological remains as a 'material consideration' is thus brought in and consequently legally 'enforcable'; planning permission can be refused if the aassessment has not be made and or failure to provide the results of an assessment (see Sections 18 to 22 link - http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicatio...ding/ppg16). So although PPG16 is only a guideline, the provisions for which it is used are governed by various pieces of legislation etc.
Returning to the original point, whether the persons actually undertaking the assessment should be members of the IfA, this is not a requirement that can be enforced by the local plannning authority. All the developer needs to do is to ensure they employ a professionally qualified archaeological organisation or consultant (PPG16 - Para 20)
If I remain confused, it's because it's my natural state... :face-huh: