23rd January 2007, 01:36 PM
I recently asked curators in 12 different counties about their influence on the planning decision process.
None of them had ever asked the local authority to refuse planning permission on archaeological grounds, except where the reason was failure to provide information (i.e. a DBA and/or an evaluation). In all cases, they were happy to remove the recommendation for refusal if the developer produced the information.
In all cases, whenever they recommended an archaeological planning condition, the local authority had always imposed that condition.
The majority of the curators were happy with the support they get from the local authority. The local authorities nearly always went along with the recommendations of the curators.
Having said that, I am aware of a recent case in another county where an archaeological planning condition was requested but not imposed - in that case, the authority forgot(!) to impose any planning conditions (i.e. they omitted them all, not just the archaeological one). Nevertheless, the developer (a commercial organisation) went ahead and commissioned the archaeological mitigation work previously proposed, although they were under no obligation to do so.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
None of them had ever asked the local authority to refuse planning permission on archaeological grounds, except where the reason was failure to provide information (i.e. a DBA and/or an evaluation). In all cases, they were happy to remove the recommendation for refusal if the developer produced the information.
In all cases, whenever they recommended an archaeological planning condition, the local authority had always imposed that condition.
The majority of the curators were happy with the support they get from the local authority. The local authorities nearly always went along with the recommendations of the curators.
Having said that, I am aware of a recent case in another county where an archaeological planning condition was requested but not imposed - in that case, the authority forgot(!) to impose any planning conditions (i.e. they omitted them all, not just the archaeological one). Nevertheless, the developer (a commercial organisation) went ahead and commissioned the archaeological mitigation work previously proposed, although they were under no obligation to do so.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished