12th June 2006, 02:22 PM
Buried SAMs with no visible surface remains - do they have a setting ? As I mentioned before, see the transcriptions of the Stonehenge A303 planning inquiry (http:http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/...transcript) particularly page 16 of 12th March 2004 am and pages 98-102 of 11th March 2004 pm.
The Inspector fell back on para. 27 of PPG16 which refers to 'a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or would have a significant impact on the settings of visible remains' i.e. the remains must be visible, and impact on setting must be significant. In his report he wrote 'I do not accept, however, that exisitng planning guidance provides that non visible remains have a setting that needs to be preserved.'
The end result is that although we (the heritage profession) might debate the issue of setting, and of non-visible remains, planners will look to official planning guidance for their cue.
For this reason it would be useful to have further official guidance from EH or ODPM or DCMS - not because (thanks Vulpes) consultants like myself would be able to put their own spin on the guidelines, but because this might introduce a little bit more objectivity into the situation. At the moment there is plenty of room for me to put my own spin onto interpretation of issues of settings and impacts, but I would prefer to be more constrained (not literally of course).
Beamo
The Inspector fell back on para. 27 of PPG16 which refers to 'a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or would have a significant impact on the settings of visible remains' i.e. the remains must be visible, and impact on setting must be significant. In his report he wrote 'I do not accept, however, that exisitng planning guidance provides that non visible remains have a setting that needs to be preserved.'
The end result is that although we (the heritage profession) might debate the issue of setting, and of non-visible remains, planners will look to official planning guidance for their cue.
For this reason it would be useful to have further official guidance from EH or ODPM or DCMS - not because (thanks Vulpes) consultants like myself would be able to put their own spin on the guidelines, but because this might introduce a little bit more objectivity into the situation. At the moment there is plenty of room for me to put my own spin onto interpretation of issues of settings and impacts, but I would prefer to be more constrained (not literally of course).
Beamo