30th May 2010, 12:26 PM
The really key bit of the PPS is the government's objectives (Sections 6-7). As already stated the guidance is just that - Guidance - and represents a recommended route to achieving the objectives and policy outcomes set out in the PPS - it being reasonable to propose and follow other routes than those set out. Decisions regarding heritage assets are always going to be weighed against their significance and this will apply to PARIS as much as to any other strategy. The objectives make this clear - to skip to the 2nd set:
The first bit of this objective makes it clear that decisions to conserve should bear in mind the significance of assets - a grey area which will no doubt be filled with much debate - but which certainly does not mean that excavation will be entirely replaced by PARIS. Fundamentally, as with PPG16 it is likely that PARIS will often be a solution adopted for only the most significant remains.
The third and final objective acknowledges that heritage assets will be lost but at least does not perpetuate the lie that recording represents 'preservation by record'.
I would agree with the government's assertion that PPS5 does not represent a weakening of PPG16 principles, but it does potentially introduce many more factors to be weighed when making decisions and also many more options that may be taken.
Quote:to conserve England’s heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their
significance by ensuring that:
–– decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of that significance,
investigated to a degree proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset
–– wherever possible, heritage assets are put to an appropriate and viable use
that is consistent with their conservation
–– the positive contribution of such heritage assets to local character and sense
of place is recognised and valued; and
–– consideration of the historic environment is integrated into planning policies,
promoting place-shaping.
The first bit of this objective makes it clear that decisions to conserve should bear in mind the significance of assets - a grey area which will no doubt be filled with much debate - but which certainly does not mean that excavation will be entirely replaced by PARIS. Fundamentally, as with PPG16 it is likely that PARIS will often be a solution adopted for only the most significant remains.
The third and final objective acknowledges that heritage assets will be lost but at least does not perpetuate the lie that recording represents 'preservation by record'.
Quote:to contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past by ensuring that
opportunities are taken to capture evidence from the historic environment and
to make this publicly available, particularly where a heritage asset is to be lost.
I would agree with the government's assertion that PPS5 does not represent a weakening of PPG16 principles, but it does potentially introduce many more factors to be weighed when making decisions and also many more options that may be taken.