16th November 2010, 12:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 16th November 2010, 12:26 PM by kevin wooldridge.)
Jack Wrote:Also why should a client pay for a 'site' to be understood? Surely they should only pay to mitigate the damage they will cause. Also in this day and age of landscape archaeology, where does one site end and another start?
I think Jack the point of PPS5 (at least IMHO) is that developers realise the archaeological resource could form an integeral part of the planning process. Agreements they enter into at the planning agreement stage regarding archaeology are as pertinent as agreements they enter into regarding their development and the natural environment, the setting of their development with regard to neighbours and pollution etc etc. Why should a client pay for it? Because the powers that be designate they should!!
The English Heritage practice guide to the application of PPS5 is I think most useful to archaeologists trying to get their head around some of the trickier questions posed by PPS5. And as planning advice fortunately seems to be one area where the government have decreed the EH budget will be protected... we may as well take this as the 'bible' for the implementation of PPS5.....
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publi...eguide.pdf
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...