2nd February 2006, 03:04 PM
Beamo said: "Sorry Mr Landowner your actions are not in line with what was agreed in the WSI 10 years ago to meet planning condition no. 26, and this condition is now deemed to have not been adequately discharged. We would therefore request that you demolish the 100 houses that were built on this site - Oh, you've sold them all into the private sector and that would mean taking enforcement against 100 home-owning families who consider that they purchased their houses legally and with all conditions discharged. I think not."
In reply to Beamo, I never said that or insinuated it. The instances of changes to the planning consent without proper consultation happens often and, as you point out, after its too late. In the case of Paul Blinkhorn it is the developer who is refusing to hand over the artefacts. As it is a developer I would assume that they must be known to the council planning authorities and are quite likely to have a working relationship with them. Wouldn't it be preferable to strike them off as a recommended developer? Or are we drifting down the road of restraints of commerce? However, I'm not afraid to say that, yet again, no doubt local politicians are up to their necks in it and nothing will ever happen outside the linning of their pockets.
Have any curators ever come across this situation, or will this fall into the same category as 'what to do with developers who have failed to adeqately fund publication but against whom enforcement action is extemely unlikely' ?
Its been a while since I've seen this as a problem and when I do come across such incidencies its been the fault of bad archaeological budgeting.
In reply to Beamo, I never said that or insinuated it. The instances of changes to the planning consent without proper consultation happens often and, as you point out, after its too late. In the case of Paul Blinkhorn it is the developer who is refusing to hand over the artefacts. As it is a developer I would assume that they must be known to the council planning authorities and are quite likely to have a working relationship with them. Wouldn't it be preferable to strike them off as a recommended developer? Or are we drifting down the road of restraints of commerce? However, I'm not afraid to say that, yet again, no doubt local politicians are up to their necks in it and nothing will ever happen outside the linning of their pockets.
Have any curators ever come across this situation, or will this fall into the same category as 'what to do with developers who have failed to adeqately fund publication but against whom enforcement action is extemely unlikely' ?
Its been a while since I've seen this as a problem and when I do come across such incidencies its been the fault of bad archaeological budgeting.