9th February 2006, 02:45 PM
Perhaps it is the system that you should attack, rather than the roles resulting from it. However I do not see how the developer in this case has dictated to to the LPA: his agent the consultant has made a counter-proposal that the LPA may or may not consider acceptable. Surely both parties have to justify their stance?
The system has been set up to allow an applicant to challenge planner's advice and/or conditions, as applies to issues other than archaeology. There are certainly pros and cons with this somewhat adverserial sytem, but given that we have it, one would think that Alfie would be able to stick to his guns and demonstrate that his view should prevail in this case.
No doubt your other examples are too long ago for you to report them to the IFA or the Hotline. I'm not sure how a consultant can permit demolition of a Listed Building though!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
The system has been set up to allow an applicant to challenge planner's advice and/or conditions, as applies to issues other than archaeology. There are certainly pros and cons with this somewhat adverserial sytem, but given that we have it, one would think that Alfie would be able to stick to his guns and demonstrate that his view should prevail in this case.
No doubt your other examples are too long ago for you to report them to the IFA or the Hotline. I'm not sure how a consultant can permit demolition of a Listed Building though!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.