10th November 2010, 12:15 PM
Slightly off topic but the EH press release on how the cuts will affect them http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/news/funding-englands-heritage/ says
"Following the Government announcement of a 32% cut to the grant of English Heritage, Commissioners have determined that in the national interest we will protect:
? our planning advice services, especially given the cuts in local authority funding;
? designation, ie identifying our heritage and protecting it by listing, scheduling and so on, which is a core activity no one else can do;
? the maintenance and conservation of our properties which we have a responsibility to look after for future generations;
? all existing grant commitments"
It has to be assumed that the EH planning service will be unaffected, how far the same is true for councils remains to be seen - I will add this to the agenda.
I agree the emphasis on an evidence based system and research is a good thing. Stopping archaeology being temporal contamination removers is to be welcomed. In one of my BAJR conference papers I called for the ology to be put back into archaeology I think PPS 5 goes some way to doing this. Is this something that we can all agree on?
Yes PPS 5 should lead to more pre-application consultations but given that many LPAs charge for this or won’t do them at all I suspect this is a difficulty. The core message of PPG 16 was cooperation not confrontation and early consultation. I am unsure if removing this clause is a good or a bad thing.
Yes the planning system is going to go through a major shake up and who knows what will happen. I think this is long overdue. Making the planning system more democratic is a good thing.
Peter
(But I would say this being a Liberal Democrat. And yes can we avoid the IFA/Curator bashing.)
"Following the Government announcement of a 32% cut to the grant of English Heritage, Commissioners have determined that in the national interest we will protect:
? our planning advice services, especially given the cuts in local authority funding;
? designation, ie identifying our heritage and protecting it by listing, scheduling and so on, which is a core activity no one else can do;
? the maintenance and conservation of our properties which we have a responsibility to look after for future generations;
? all existing grant commitments"
It has to be assumed that the EH planning service will be unaffected, how far the same is true for councils remains to be seen - I will add this to the agenda.
I agree the emphasis on an evidence based system and research is a good thing. Stopping archaeology being temporal contamination removers is to be welcomed. In one of my BAJR conference papers I called for the ology to be put back into archaeology I think PPS 5 goes some way to doing this. Is this something that we can all agree on?
Yes PPS 5 should lead to more pre-application consultations but given that many LPAs charge for this or won’t do them at all I suspect this is a difficulty. The core message of PPG 16 was cooperation not confrontation and early consultation. I am unsure if removing this clause is a good or a bad thing.
Yes the planning system is going to go through a major shake up and who knows what will happen. I think this is long overdue. Making the planning system more democratic is a good thing.
Peter
(But I would say this being a Liberal Democrat. And yes can we avoid the IFA/Curator bashing.)