the invisible man Wrote:Not surprising, 95% of planning applications have no archaeological conditions attached. The 5% that do include very few extensions.From experience in a former life, in architecture, between 1990 and 2004 there was only ever one archaeological condition on an application by our practice.
I should have mentioned ponds, and new builds (very minimal). The particular village I was refering to is located in an area with considerable archaeology, in a conservation area, area of outstanding natural beauty etc...lots of restrictions but very little awareness (by the people living there) of what this means.
Quote:As for the Bill, sheer madness. Can we expect a rash of flat-roofed extensions and bulky loft conversions, even bigger than the current permitted developments, all over the country? Presumably this lunacy will not apply in Conservation Areas???Hmmm, this is part of the problem, not knowing to what effect this localism bill will have.
Quote:I wonder though who or what the "independent qualified person" is supposed to be? A planning consultant?Out of all the text in that statement, this is what caught my eye as well. To me it reads "Vague, but with a requirement...will let ya know"
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.