9th January 2007, 06:59 PM
1D- You are right- I call my work spec as in SPECulation and in terms of peepeeG it normally amounts to the WSI which is a term which I am coming to mistrust as it seems to be appearing more and more in the conditions around here set in its original context (rather than when used in EIAs). They seem to be using the famous negative condition from peepeeG for everything
"No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority."
What I find galling is that they leave it as archaeological work when it is obviously a watching brief âso why dont they just say so and save me the phone call. I have asked why and apparently watching brief is so last season -could be insight into the forthcoming WHITE PAPER. (not the Spanish inquisition)
Whatâs could be interesting is: is the negative post determination condition in the SPIRIT of the Barker EIA judgement? ....at what point does the EU EIA directives take on the itty bitty (97%)sites of TCPA
"No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority."
What I find galling is that they leave it as archaeological work when it is obviously a watching brief âso why dont they just say so and save me the phone call. I have asked why and apparently watching brief is so last season -could be insight into the forthcoming WHITE PAPER. (not the Spanish inquisition)
Whatâs could be interesting is: is the negative post determination condition in the SPIRIT of the Barker EIA judgement? ....at what point does the EU EIA directives take on the itty bitty (97%)sites of TCPA