23rd January 2007, 09:42 AM
Sorry Peter, that may be the way it is supposed to work, but the pressure on meeting targets is too great for the districts, and certainly in my County and it simply doesn't happen like that.
Once an application is registered, the planning authority has eight weeks to make a determination. The fact that the application may be revealed to be incomplete after registry does not mean it is removed from the statistics, so the inclination is to make a decision anyway if possible. Lack of archaeoogical information has only been deemed of sufficient importance to ask the applicant to withdraw the application if there are a number of other ommissions. On its own, it appears not to be enough and a decision is made on the application. I can't think of a single example where a lack of archaeological information has been used as the only reason for a withdrawl - but I can think of a lot where a panicky case officer has contacted me and asked if a condition could be added to a permission in lieu of a proper initial submission, so an application can be approved within the approaching deadline.
Once an application is registered, the planning authority has eight weeks to make a determination. The fact that the application may be revealed to be incomplete after registry does not mean it is removed from the statistics, so the inclination is to make a decision anyway if possible. Lack of archaeoogical information has only been deemed of sufficient importance to ask the applicant to withdraw the application if there are a number of other ommissions. On its own, it appears not to be enough and a decision is made on the application. I can't think of a single example where a lack of archaeological information has been used as the only reason for a withdrawl - but I can think of a lot where a panicky case officer has contacted me and asked if a condition could be added to a permission in lieu of a proper initial submission, so an application can be approved within the approaching deadline.