23rd April 2012, 08:45 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:By the process of objection. If somebody did not like my submitted consideration they could object. This is what happens for other considerations. There are even business set up around it http://www.planning-objections.com/index.htm
and heres a list of valide things you can object about.
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/environm...cation.htm
And who decides whether that objection is reasonable? How many objections to your shoddy 'archaeological consideration' does the planner have to receive to realise that you're not actually an archaeologist, but a bought stooge? If a local resident with no archaeological background objects is this enough to counter the so called 'archaeological consideration' produced by a the stooge?
You've linked to a list of considerations against which people can object to planning applications. Great, but archaeology isn't the only one where the planner takes specialist advice... Highway safety (highway officer), Loss of trees (tree officer), Effect on listed building and conservation area (conservation officer), Design, appearance and materials (design officer), Nature conservation (bio-diversity officer), footpaths (rights of way officer)... is it all advisors you wish to do away with or just archaeological ones?