7th November 2015, 12:17 PM
But nothing's simple. There appears to be a little bit of your system in SI 418 by which s
" sites of archaeological interest" are designated by "resolution" by "county councils" if you twist the words of the SI about a bit. It could appear to confer a county schedualed monument status but I would suggest that it still comes up against the two tier planning system which puts a lot of the current development under the LPAs.
To my mind SI 418 should be drafted to make the LPA the Authority which would make more sense for NPPF. It would also move the funding requirements to the LPA level. NPPF has got that nasty little caviat
" sites of archaeological interest" are designated by "resolution" by "county councils" if you twist the words of the SI about a bit. It could appear to confer a county schedualed monument status but I would suggest that it still comes up against the two tier planning system which puts a lot of the current development under the LPAs.
To my mind SI 418 should be drafted to make the LPA the Authority which would make more sense for NPPF. It would also move the funding requirements to the LPA level. NPPF has got that nasty little caviat
Quote:30 Copies of evidence should be deposited with the relevant Historic Environment Record, and any archives with a local museum or other public depository.which does not describe the landscape of most LPAs which is that the museum is at best a county store. Again it seems to me that if NPPF want LPAs to actually feel the responsibility of taking heritage assesment into their desicion making that it would be a lot clear to,them if they were also having to find the money to run a local archaeology museum and local HER.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist