You might be on to something there Marc - although i will (as always) have to re-read....NPPF was introduced as part of government measures advertised to specifically reduce red-tape...hmmm.
these seem to be the key points to verify (edited) ;
"In ppg16, evaluation was seen as the inexpensive field method to find out whats there, and as basis to give a cost for excavation. Or potentially to suggest the only other mitigation; ie a "watching brief" - something which is designed for when development starts, and which I would suggest is when the application is granted. I think that that is a very important point for a field archaeologist, or a client, to understand."
"The whole point of NPPF is that archaeology should be taken into consideration in the decision; para 128 (and 129). No where in NPPF is there mention of "Archaeological management plans". Potentially we could have a rogue authority who does not wish to pursue a pre-determination evaluation (let alone a desk based study) where there might be potentially very expensive excavation or heritage involved." (?)
these seem to be the key points to verify (edited) ;
"In ppg16, evaluation was seen as the inexpensive field method to find out whats there, and as basis to give a cost for excavation. Or potentially to suggest the only other mitigation; ie a "watching brief" - something which is designed for when development starts, and which I would suggest is when the application is granted. I think that that is a very important point for a field archaeologist, or a client, to understand."
"The whole point of NPPF is that archaeology should be taken into consideration in the decision; para 128 (and 129). No where in NPPF is there mention of "Archaeological management plans". Potentially we could have a rogue authority who does not wish to pursue a pre-determination evaluation (let alone a desk based study) where there might be potentially very expensive excavation or heritage involved." (?)