Unitof1 Wrote:Hello tmsarch
sorry about the link. It was just to a planning application document picked out at random. Here is the form that it was on http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/appPDF/W3520Form004_england_en.pdf
found here
http://www.midsuffolk.gov.uk/PlanningAndBuilding/PlanningServices/Application+Forms/Application+Forms.htm
I would like to see archaeology mentioned on this form. I find this form used in many districts
Hi Unitof1, thanks for the response. The application form that you link to is the 1App form and it should be used by all LPAs in England for the submission of planning applications, not just many districts. It is the only legal way to lodge a planning application (other than for certain minerals developments). I would agree with you that in an ideal world it would be good to see archaeology included on that form, but that is not going to happen. However alongside that form most (all?) planning authorities will have their own local validation requirements and archaeology usually forms part of these - something we should welcome.
Unitof1 Wrote:1. Yes on the basis that archaeology does not need council curators as far as I am concerned. I want them gone so that we can get on with doing archaeology without them and their cost. Mostly I want the archaeology to be undertaken pre determination. I think that the curators drag it into post descion too much. I don think anybody losing their job is good.
2. I see a relatively straight forward one based on objections to planning applications with the planning officers following planning guidance’s, local plans, political influence, local concern. Much like they do on choosing brick colours and types
I would agree with you that in some cases it would be preferrable to see more archaeological work carried out pre-determination. Beyond this point I cannot agree with you. I am interested that you see curators as being the ones who 'drag' archaeological considerations into post decission, but think that you are wrong on this point. Both developers and planners are ususally happier working with planning conditions and in my experience it is often the curators who are pressing for the pre-determination works.
Planners, perhaps by their nature, seem to like conditions - it is a concept that they are familiar with and are happy to deal with. They are somewhat less keen on pre-determination assessment, particularly once an application has been validated and the 'clock is ticking' (the discussion of the failiure of the validation system is another matter).
Developers also in my experience generally prefer a condition and usually ask for any archaeological works to be dealt with post-determination. This is often a financial issue - in order to secure finance for development works (including archaeology) they need to have secured planning permission in order to borrow against that permission. With the economic situation as it is developers often have a much tighter cash flow and there is simply no money to do archaeology up-front. Once they have a planning consent in place (with an archaeology condition) they use this to secure finance and then pay for the archaeological works. It is a chicken and egg situation, but developers will generally prefer a condition appraoch (less so for desk-based work, but particualrly for field evaluation).
I am therefore confused how you think removing the one person (the curator) from the system who is most likely to push for pre-determination work from the system will result in more work being carried out pre-determination.
Unitof1 Wrote:Much like they do on choosing brick colours and types
I find this sentance odd - one of the things planners will often do on such matter's is take advice from their council's urban design/design and conservation team on such matters (not just for conservation areas). Why should a planner not be able to get the same specialist advice from their archaeological advisor (curator) with regard to archaeology as they do to the choice of bricks?
Unitof1 Wrote:3. The way that it is mentioned
I dont see why I acting for the applicant cannot make recommendations to the planning officer or the planning committee
never been to mid sommer sulfolk in my life nor have any intension
I won't requote all of the sections of PPS 5 that you have included, but I think that you are missplaced in your reading of the document. PPS 5 puts an onuss on the applicant to provide sufficient information for the application to be determined, but in order for the Local Planning Authority to be sure that they are not issuing decissions that are open to legal challenge they take specialist advice on areas where a planner would not have appropriate specialist knowledge. Archaeology is one of these areas, but not the only one. Biodiversity, which you mentioned earlier is another.
[This is where we come back to the issue of validation - an application simply needs to include this information, validation (in its present form) does not appear to allow for any consideration of the 'quality' of information that is submitted, only its presence (validate) or absence (don't validate). You ask why you can't make recommendations to the planning officer on behalf of the applicant (your client)? Well you can there is nothing stopping you doing this, but the Planning Authority will want to get independent advice as to whether your recommendations are appropriate and fit for purpose, it is them not you who would be challenged on the decision arrising from your recommendation - they do this by seeking advice from their in-house archaeological advisor]
I can see that we are never going to agree on this, however in my opinion it is imperritive that any Planning Authority has access to appropriate and sound advice on all planning aspects. They could choose to take this advice from any source, but I feel that this is best sourced from someone who is accountable to that Council and can offer advice without prejudice. To get us back on track, this is why I feel that the the proposals being put forward by South Yorkshire Council are wrong, and we should all take the time to object to them. The loss of specialist advice and an HER on which to base sound decissions is shortsighted and will be extremely harmful to the heritage of the area. It is a quick and easy cut to make now, but one that will take years to undo.