23rd June 2011, 01:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 23rd June 2011, 01:41 PM by Marcus Brody.)
Further to my previous post, Policy E5 of the Fenland District-Wide Local Plan states that 'DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT NORMALLY BE PERMITTED WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT IMPORTANT SITES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE WHICH MERIT CONSERVATION FOR THEIR HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, NATURE CONSERVATION, SCIENTIFIC OR LANDSCAPE IMPORTANCE'.*
Policy E6 states that 'PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT NORMALLY BE GRANTED FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PRESERVATION OR SETTING OF AN ANCIENT MONUMENT OR OTHER IMPORTANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY WILL NORMALLY REQUIRE ALL PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON SITES OF RECOGNISED OR SUSPECTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION'.
Policy E7 says 'WHERE THERE IS NO OVER-RIDING CASE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE AND PLANNING PERMISSION IS GRANTED FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONDITIONAL UPON THE DEVELOPER MAKING SATISFACTORY PROVISION FOR THE EXCAVATION AND RECORDING OF REMAINS. SUCH EXCAVATION AND RECORDING WILL BE CARRIED OUT BEFORE DEVELOPMENT COMMENCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PROJECT BRIEF PREPARED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY, WITH ADVICE FROM THE COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGISTS, WHERE APPROPRIATE PROVISION SHALL BE MADE FOR THE SEALING AND PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT LAYERS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION'.
It's possible that the local plan may be out of date, as it was adopted in 1993, but it's still the most current available on the Council's website. There is an interim statement of proposed changes to the local plan from 2001, but it doesn't mention archaeology, so it would appear that the 1993 policies remain in effect. These would seem to be a fairly clear statement of how the Council wants archaeological material to be treated in the planning process. If the Councillor wishes to change them, he would of course be able to submit alterations for inclusion in subsequent revisions of the local plan, but these would need to be available for consultation so that other councillors / residents had the opportunity to object if they disagree with his proposals for unrestricted development. For him to suggest that the Council should simply disregard whole sections of its own policies without any public scrutiny would make a complete mockery of the idea of a planning-led system, turning it instead into a situation where issues were decided on the whim of one man.
Apologies for the policies being in uppercase - they were cut-and-pasted from the local plan and I didn't want to re-type them all.
*I found another document which indicates that Policy E5 is no longer used, but E6 and E7 are still listed as being live, and if anything, they're the two that are most relevant
Policy E6 states that 'PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT NORMALLY BE GRANTED FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PRESERVATION OR SETTING OF AN ANCIENT MONUMENT OR OTHER IMPORTANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY WILL NORMALLY REQUIRE ALL PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON SITES OF RECOGNISED OR SUSPECTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION'.
Policy E7 says 'WHERE THERE IS NO OVER-RIDING CASE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE AND PLANNING PERMISSION IS GRANTED FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONDITIONAL UPON THE DEVELOPER MAKING SATISFACTORY PROVISION FOR THE EXCAVATION AND RECORDING OF REMAINS. SUCH EXCAVATION AND RECORDING WILL BE CARRIED OUT BEFORE DEVELOPMENT COMMENCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PROJECT BRIEF PREPARED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY, WITH ADVICE FROM THE COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGISTS, WHERE APPROPRIATE PROVISION SHALL BE MADE FOR THE SEALING AND PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT LAYERS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION'.
It's possible that the local plan may be out of date, as it was adopted in 1993, but it's still the most current available on the Council's website. There is an interim statement of proposed changes to the local plan from 2001, but it doesn't mention archaeology, so it would appear that the 1993 policies remain in effect. These would seem to be a fairly clear statement of how the Council wants archaeological material to be treated in the planning process. If the Councillor wishes to change them, he would of course be able to submit alterations for inclusion in subsequent revisions of the local plan, but these would need to be available for consultation so that other councillors / residents had the opportunity to object if they disagree with his proposals for unrestricted development. For him to suggest that the Council should simply disregard whole sections of its own policies without any public scrutiny would make a complete mockery of the idea of a planning-led system, turning it instead into a situation where issues were decided on the whim of one man.
Apologies for the policies being in uppercase - they were cut-and-pasted from the local plan and I didn't want to re-type them all.
*I found another document which indicates that Policy E5 is no longer used, but E6 and E7 are still listed as being live, and if anything, they're the two that are most relevant
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum