17th May 2016, 11:25 AM
Steven, thanks for the exercise, I had to get Bletchley Park to work it out in the end. 3127969
isn’t about artefacts its just about the inspector is probably an ex planning officer and thinks that everybody is familiar with the mounties briefs. If any thing it has gone out of its way not mention artifacts
There is no way that anybody can work out what archaeological mitigation is from the Conditions, it needs a brief. If the inspector had applied the six tests to the actual Conditions it would have failed but they fiddle the scope and this one manages not to mention any "briefs", pretends to assess the archaeology and hay presto the county mounties get away with it again. Can a planning inspectors decision be appealed?
Theres no actual wording of what the applicant appealed.
isn’t about artefacts its just about the inspector is probably an ex planning officer and thinks that everybody is familiar with the mounties briefs. If any thing it has gone out of its way not mention artifacts
There is no way that anybody can work out what archaeological mitigation is from the Conditions, it needs a brief. If the inspector had applied the six tests to the actual Conditions it would have failed but they fiddle the scope and this one manages not to mention any "briefs", pretends to assess the archaeology and hay presto the county mounties get away with it again. Can a planning inspectors decision be appealed?
Theres no actual wording of what the applicant appealed.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist