28th May 2010, 03:54 PM
Quote:[SIZE=3]Seek to eradicate or minimise impact through design (for example, foundations that span sensitive areas rather than penetrate them).[/SIZE]
Is what it says, and is admittedly a poor example of approach (I blame EH). However, it may be succesfully argued under PPS5 that such an approach is not warranted for anything but the most significant remains and this is certainly something that would be weighed up on a case by case basis.
I agree entirely regarding the weight of the guidance, it is indeed a material consideration. However, it does not have to be followed to the letter and other approaches are possible and may be acceptable as long as they chime with policy. That is why the 2 documents are separate. The guidance merely represents a preferred approach and is not prescriptive. The policy is much more open and it is within this gap that consultants may thrive. As such the guidance may be left and not taken..... Policy is king. Sorry if I didn't make this clear before and I hope that this is clear.
Better?
