11th August 2008, 12:41 PM
no planning permission, there is no breach of condition, and therefore no enforcement action
Same here... so... I am now under the impression that laying foundations can be part of permitted development.. and if say there is a limit to the ammount... answer do it in small chunks that do not exceed. keep material in the site boundaries .. that should solve any requirements to have planning notified about transport of material off site...
At the end of the day... it is becoming worryingly clear that this theoretical is indeed a widespread issue...
Mr Dodgy the Developer can easily circumvent archaeology if so wishing. (my all time fave is the fine of 2k for damage to archaeology - developer signs check as it was cheaper than getting in archaeologists!)
Most developers are actually doing the right thing... don't get me wrong, I don't think all Developers are Tinted window Navvarra driving growlers... We seem to have a range of holes that a Nissan pickup can be driven through with ease...
Question: What are they? How to butress the defences.. collectively we can surely create an emergency document to reach for in times such as these.
so
1. Developer decides to use permitted development to lay foundations in boxed out basement.
2. Developer removes all the soil to a depth of 2 m but stores it on site. (whoops all the archaeology is now in handy pile)
3. The shifting goalpost - developement changes due to unforeseen conditions, had to act immediatelt, otherwise it would have been unsafe..?
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Same here... so... I am now under the impression that laying foundations can be part of permitted development.. and if say there is a limit to the ammount... answer do it in small chunks that do not exceed. keep material in the site boundaries .. that should solve any requirements to have planning notified about transport of material off site...
At the end of the day... it is becoming worryingly clear that this theoretical is indeed a widespread issue...
Mr Dodgy the Developer can easily circumvent archaeology if so wishing. (my all time fave is the fine of 2k for damage to archaeology - developer signs check as it was cheaper than getting in archaeologists!)
Most developers are actually doing the right thing... don't get me wrong, I don't think all Developers are Tinted window Navvarra driving growlers... We seem to have a range of holes that a Nissan pickup can be driven through with ease...
Question: What are they? How to butress the defences.. collectively we can surely create an emergency document to reach for in times such as these.
so
1. Developer decides to use permitted development to lay foundations in boxed out basement.
2. Developer removes all the soil to a depth of 2 m but stores it on site. (whoops all the archaeology is now in handy pile)
3. The shifting goalpost - developement changes due to unforeseen conditions, had to act immediatelt, otherwise it would have been unsafe..?
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers