9th March 2007, 10:59 AM
Yes,
Having reread the document I am unclear as to how the protection system will be different to that in force prior to PPG16 with only SAMs and other sites mentioned in the local plan being protected.
PPG16 protected all sites from development not those that were designated. PPG 16 to a degree also protects unknown sites and sites that are poorly understood - the evaluation.
We also now have a degree of protection for "archaeological priority areas", sites mentioned in the SMRs and similar.
My concern is that I thought the new systen would include none nationally important sites monuments like grade II buildings but it doesnot.
I would have hoped as the white paper is all about heritage and the planning system that there would be clear references to development control and non protected sites. We thus now have to wait and see what the new guidance says and the new planning act. It would have been neater to have a paragraph which said something like.
"The vast majority of archaeological sites do not currently enjoy protection by designation. They are protected from development by virtue of the fact they are a material consideration in the determination of a planning application".
Peter
Having reread the document I am unclear as to how the protection system will be different to that in force prior to PPG16 with only SAMs and other sites mentioned in the local plan being protected.
PPG16 protected all sites from development not those that were designated. PPG 16 to a degree also protects unknown sites and sites that are poorly understood - the evaluation.
We also now have a degree of protection for "archaeological priority areas", sites mentioned in the SMRs and similar.
My concern is that I thought the new systen would include none nationally important sites monuments like grade II buildings but it doesnot.
I would have hoped as the white paper is all about heritage and the planning system that there would be clear references to development control and non protected sites. We thus now have to wait and see what the new guidance says and the new planning act. It would have been neater to have a paragraph which said something like.
"The vast majority of archaeological sites do not currently enjoy protection by designation. They are protected from development by virtue of the fact they are a material consideration in the determination of a planning application".
Peter