11th April 2016, 07:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 11th April 2016, 07:21 PM by Marc Berger.)
Hello Alastair There shouldn't be any acceptable works that require consideration of the acceptability of archaeological work that would be required to be undertaken to discharge a condition apart from watching briefs. What qualities of an archaeologists watching a digger driver they want to monitor I don't think should be the subject of unlawful development. The argument might be more should there always be a watching brief following an evaluation if the evaluation has not gone to excavation.
What you might want to concern yourself with is the instigation of a watching brief without a prior assessment of the heritage assess as required in para 128 and 129 NPPF but often ignored in a majority of planning applications in Lincolnshire. I found it questionavble that in PPG16 negative conditions calling for a WSI presented for the situation of a site going to excavation was spread by many authorities to the use of negative conditions for a watching brief without evaluation. PPG16 had its own 141 caveat
Alistair I would dearly love the LPAs to assess the acceptability of the archaeology so that they could show the public their incorporation of heritage in "plan making" and "develop management" and also make the evidence used locally available and by locally available I mean within the LPA area......not at the county level. The LPAs use the LCC planning archaeologists as Statutory consultees and they aren't.
What you might want to concern yourself with is the instigation of a watching brief without a prior assessment of the heritage assess as required in para 128 and 129 NPPF but often ignored in a majority of planning applications in Lincolnshire. I found it questionavble that in PPG16 negative conditions calling for a WSI presented for the situation of a site going to excavation was spread by many authorities to the use of negative conditions for a watching brief without evaluation. PPG16 had its own 141 caveat
Quote:the same token developers should not expect to obtain planning permission for archaeologically damaging development merely because they arrange for the recording of sites whose physical preservation in situ is both desirable (because of their level of importance) and feasible.However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.
Alistair I would dearly love the LPAs to assess the acceptability of the archaeology so that they could show the public their incorporation of heritage in "plan making" and "develop management" and also make the evidence used locally available and by locally available I mean within the LPA area......not at the county level. The LPAs use the LCC planning archaeologists as Statutory consultees and they aren't.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist