16th January 2007, 01:37 PM
Perhaps before we start waving the well-worn anti-'establishment' banners we should look at exactly what this review is aimed at achieving.
The 'planning disaster' website just makes a list of several alarmist outcomes of what 'could' happen.
As far as I've heard the review is merely to see where the planning process can be speeded up, especially with regard to very small-scale development applications which currently plod through the planning process in exactly the same way with large-scale development proposals. If there is a way to improve the speed in which small planning applications can be treated then good - this will not automatically mean a negative impact on the treatment of archaeology within the planning process or negative impacts on commercial archaeology.
The 'planning disaster' website just makes a list of several alarmist outcomes of what 'could' happen.
As far as I've heard the review is merely to see where the planning process can be speeded up, especially with regard to very small-scale development applications which currently plod through the planning process in exactly the same way with large-scale development proposals. If there is a way to improve the speed in which small planning applications can be treated then good - this will not automatically mean a negative impact on the treatment of archaeology within the planning process or negative impacts on commercial archaeology.