21st April 2009, 03:39 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
Steven said,
"elected members of a council formulate and agree a policy stating that archaeiology in the planning process can only be carried out by members of the IFA then that has a legal basis and the council can enforce it."
This isnt quite correct. The elected members of an LPA can formulate a policy requiring membership of the IFA but they cant enforce it straight away. Such policy would have to be a formal planning policy which was part of a Local Plan. The proposed plans is scrutinised in public and a planning inspector makes the final decision. The policy also has to be in accordance with national guidelines.
In the absence of a licensing system clarification of who is qualified to undertake archaeological fieldwork and/or building recording could be useful in such documents.
Peter
Hi Chaps
Councils are not governed by PPG16, they have powers under the Local Government Act which means they can, if they wish, require whatever they want to ensure social and Environmental well-being. It is more likely that if a council did decide to restrict practices to membership of a recognised organisation it would be through a policy or strategy related to this, not through the Local plan Process.
Don't get caught up in thinking archaeology is all about planning, its not, its a cultural and environmental matter and so PPG16 is just the mechanism not the issue!
Troll
PPG16 clearly states that it is "desirable" to preserve an archaeological site in its setting. It then goes on to discuss the significance of remains and that there should be a presumption or preservation in-situ of "nationaly impoprtant archaeological remains". Then it clearly says that LPAs may well decide that remains of "lesser importance" should be excavated.
Most sites within the planning process fall within the local or regional significance range so excavation is pretty clearly the correct PPG16 response.
Steven