9th August 2009, 11:40 PM
HE9.8
Local planning authorities should not accept material harm to or removal of
significance in relation to a heritage asset unless:
(ii) the heritage asset impedes all reasonable uses of the site, there is clear evidence
that no viable use of the site can be found in the medium term that will enable
the retention of the asset?s significance, and conservation through grantfunding
or some form of charitable or public ownership is not possible or
YP-
so if there is no money for it then its ok to go.........?
(iii) it can be demonstrated that the material harm to or removal of significance is
outweighed by the wider social, economic and environmental benefits,
including mitigating climate change, that will be delivered by the proposed
development
YP-
sounds not so bad, but would depend on how much push is enough to push it off the agenda.
txt is
Mike
Local planning authorities should not accept material harm to or removal of
significance in relation to a heritage asset unless:
(ii) the heritage asset impedes all reasonable uses of the site, there is clear evidence
that no viable use of the site can be found in the medium term that will enable
the retention of the asset?s significance, and conservation through grantfunding
or some form of charitable or public ownership is not possible or
YP-
so if there is no money for it then its ok to go.........?
(iii) it can be demonstrated that the material harm to or removal of significance is
outweighed by the wider social, economic and environmental benefits,
including mitigating climate change, that will be delivered by the proposed
development
YP-
sounds not so bad, but would depend on how much push is enough to push it off the agenda.
txt is
Mike