31st October 2007, 10:33 PM
Hiya
I tend to do what Vulpes has suggested for big sites (excavations) that will lead to a post-ex assessment and further. To date (6+years) have not had a problem with securing publication on that basis, and fingers crossed will continue. Tend to write a letter at the end of the site works saying that I have no [u]archaeological</u> objection to construction/demolition commencing (in case there are other reasons lurking) which at least lets them carry on building. And then, as HB says, the assessment has a UPD and a date by which it will be completed. As I said, have not yet had reason to test the discharge with those caveats attached. In theory, if they bottle out of the publication, the condition which was deemed satisifed on xxx being done, can be revisited if xxx is NOT done, but I pity the enforcement offer who tries to take that on...
I personally find the PPG16 wording about post-ex very very weak. It really is focused on getting stuff out of the ground, and certainly could be updated to include my favourite word 'dissemination' which to my mind includes archiving and non-paper based publication, but I would hope that was tied up in the UPD. Can't recall any mention of archiving at all in PPG16 - but then that opens another big can of worms (Kent, anyone?)
ML
I tend to do what Vulpes has suggested for big sites (excavations) that will lead to a post-ex assessment and further. To date (6+years) have not had a problem with securing publication on that basis, and fingers crossed will continue. Tend to write a letter at the end of the site works saying that I have no [u]archaeological</u> objection to construction/demolition commencing (in case there are other reasons lurking) which at least lets them carry on building. And then, as HB says, the assessment has a UPD and a date by which it will be completed. As I said, have not yet had reason to test the discharge with those caveats attached. In theory, if they bottle out of the publication, the condition which was deemed satisifed on xxx being done, can be revisited if xxx is NOT done, but I pity the enforcement offer who tries to take that on...
I personally find the PPG16 wording about post-ex very very weak. It really is focused on getting stuff out of the ground, and certainly could be updated to include my favourite word 'dissemination' which to my mind includes archiving and non-paper based publication, but I would hope that was tied up in the UPD. Can't recall any mention of archiving at all in PPG16 - but then that opens another big can of worms (Kent, anyone?)
ML