22nd October 2008, 01:17 PM
Vulpes seems to be suggesting a more legal involvement
The intimation of these charges is that the developer should pay for work carried out by the planners and presumably that includes the curation of archaeology. What might be interesting is the cross-subsidy (I have been reading the bishbosh below) for applications where the curators donât recommend a condition. As m has intimated (with a hint of naivety)
Then there are the examples of the two watching brief conditions in the model conditions referenced at the start of this thread. These watching briefs are carried out post application. Now the majority in my area, apart from the archaeologist writing up the spec, with or without a brief, do not follow from any non-intrusive or intrusive evaluation carried out by the developer (with me) apart from the curators unpublished (?) evaluations. Now I have wittered at length on numerous occasions elsewhere about the abuse of watching briefs without evaluation â¦not how I would interpret ppg16.. but in the vein of m3300527s half sensible consultant spiel - could a client get out of the archaeology condition by putting a watching brief spec in with the applicationâ¦Look dear you can save yourself 25 squids by putting this spec in with the applicationâ¦â¦and if I was to get to the 90% that donât come round my way at the moment before they go to the planners.... And what would be the ethics of me saying lets do an evaluation first? Presumably if I suggest that they put a spec in the planners would charge to approve it (or if you are a member of the ifa they dont need to)
So far I have found this 2007 proposal document on Planning Costs and Fees
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicatio...nningcosts
Intesting attitude from the section 1.2 Background and Previous Studies which refers back to a 2003 study and states that this study may have been inadequate because -
The intimation of these charges is that the developer should pay for work carried out by the planners and presumably that includes the curation of archaeology. What might be interesting is the cross-subsidy (I have been reading the bishbosh below) for applications where the curators donât recommend a condition. As m has intimated (with a hint of naivety)
Quote:quote:Any half sensible consultant would be advising clients to carry out pre-determination assessment and evaluation of the site.Well 99% of my clients come to me after they have talked to curators and have had requested further information-often requiring a brief from the curator. Theses people when they come to me now will presumably already have a charge hanging over them? But this leaves, I donât know exactly as I donât know about the people who decided not to continue with an application, but as a conservative figure about 90% of the applicants who in the opinion of the curators donât require further or any archaeological work and therefore donât come near archaeologists and so archaeologists dont make any money out of themâ¦but the curators in effect doâ¦or subsidies (cross) their advice from those who are required to supply further informationâ¦..should this be a concern, we have a lot of different curatorial/planning set ups around here
Then there are the examples of the two watching brief conditions in the model conditions referenced at the start of this thread. These watching briefs are carried out post application. Now the majority in my area, apart from the archaeologist writing up the spec, with or without a brief, do not follow from any non-intrusive or intrusive evaluation carried out by the developer (with me) apart from the curators unpublished (?) evaluations. Now I have wittered at length on numerous occasions elsewhere about the abuse of watching briefs without evaluation â¦not how I would interpret ppg16.. but in the vein of m3300527s half sensible consultant spiel - could a client get out of the archaeology condition by putting a watching brief spec in with the applicationâ¦Look dear you can save yourself 25 squids by putting this spec in with the applicationâ¦â¦and if I was to get to the 90% that donât come round my way at the moment before they go to the planners.... And what would be the ethics of me saying lets do an evaluation first? Presumably if I suggest that they put a spec in the planners would charge to approve it (or if you are a member of the ifa they dont need to)
So far I have found this 2007 proposal document on Planning Costs and Fees
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicatio...nningcosts
Intesting attitude from the section 1.2 Background and Previous Studies which refers back to a 2003 study and states that this study may have been inadequate because -
Quote:quote:In particular, the previous surveys were conducted when resources were only just recovering from a particularly low point; costs were therefore artificially depressed.History etc..You have to chuckleâ¦.