4th July 2012, 10:37 AM
This could get both technical and broad ranging.
There are questions and arguments that both sides will use.
Precedent. by infilling between two existing blocks of houses. / However, this is a dangerous precedent as it has no end. and local plan envelopes often get stretched. Each new house lessens the importance of a site. therefore every new house becomes more likely.
Setting. Ah... this one keeps people in jobs. as first you must access from where it is seen and the impact it has.
Archaeology will be one aspect of planning I expect. --- and just because there is no great archaeology in an evaluation (note evaluation) does not mean the site is archaeologically unimportant.
It also has a cultural value for people as a green space. ( well rough green space)
weighing all considerations - I would have to --- like SYAS say that we had no objection on arcaeological grounds ( given that it would be indefensible) but that the potential for archaeology remained. HOWEVER - I may have - with local knowledge (of the curatorial archaeologist) been able to highlight less physical and more setting based criteria. As I don't know the site intimately then I can't say. But then again council no like that sort of whiffle. without proper data to back up when it goes to the planning appeal.
There are questions and arguments that both sides will use.
Precedent. by infilling between two existing blocks of houses. / However, this is a dangerous precedent as it has no end. and local plan envelopes often get stretched. Each new house lessens the importance of a site. therefore every new house becomes more likely.
Setting. Ah... this one keeps people in jobs. as first you must access from where it is seen and the impact it has.
Archaeology will be one aspect of planning I expect. --- and just because there is no great archaeology in an evaluation (note evaluation) does not mean the site is archaeologically unimportant.
It also has a cultural value for people as a green space. ( well rough green space)
weighing all considerations - I would have to --- like SYAS say that we had no objection on arcaeological grounds ( given that it would be indefensible) but that the potential for archaeology remained. HOWEVER - I may have - with local knowledge (of the curatorial archaeologist) been able to highlight less physical and more setting based criteria. As I don't know the site intimately then I can't say. But then again council no like that sort of whiffle. without proper data to back up when it goes to the planning appeal.