20th July 2011, 03:07 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:We need the other way mentioned in PPS.
Hi Uo1 - I would be interested to know what this other way mentioned in PPS actually is? I've tried to work out from your replies how you see a post-LA curatorial archaeological system work, but cannot for the life of me work out how you see this functioning. I'd therefore be grateful if you could answer the following questions (preferably without reference to pensions or charities) as I am genuinely interested in what you are trying to say:
1 - do you think that the loss of jobs at SYAS is a good thing and if so why?
2 - what system do you see replacing curators providing expert advice to planning officers?
3 - what is the other way mentioned in PPS 5?
Unitof1 Wrote:Here is an example representative of a common type of planning application provided by a planning authority which has prevision for statements to be made about Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, trees, floods but no mention about archaeology
I am not sure what you are trying to get at regarding your link to Mid Suffolk Council (I can't actually get the link to work, but that might just be me). Have you selected Mid Suffolk at random or is this where you work?
You seem to suggest that the planning forms provided by Mid Suffolk Council have no mention of archaeology but this is not true. Part of the planning application pack includes a local validation checklist. To quote Mid Suffolk Council "every application must comply to a set of National Standards and also a set of Local Validation Standards". Archaeology is clearly included in the Local Validation Requirements for planning applications and the validation checklist that accompanies the planning application forms on MSDC's website clearly includes archaeology. It's even listed in the checklist above Biodiversity and Geological Issues.