Diggers Forum. Anonymous Complaints.

[Marc Berger]

Tmsarch I must admit that I have not looked at any minutes but was at the committee meeting and if heritage was mentioned it must have been sailed over my head. I have tried to source these minutes this morning without any success. The eldc web appears to be broken. I don't imagine that it will be a "serious matter" but that the case officer kind of mangled together their advisors mangled hysterics for the decision notice in their spare time. I defiantly did not hear anything remotely like the decision notice statement:

The application is not supported by an appropriate evaluation of heritage
impact, would have unacceptable harmful impact on the setting of a
significant nearby heritage asset and risks unacceptable harm to the
archaeological record. This would be contrary to Paragraph 128 of the
National Planning Policy Framework.

and if as you the minutes say the fact that the site had important heritage assets I am not sure what they might exactly be even though I did the evaluation.

May I assure you that I told the client from the outset that a heritage statement had nothing what so ever to do with field archaeology and as far as I could see is not mentioned in nppf indeed nppf mentions desk based. I informed the mounty that I never done one and that nppf mentions desk based. The Mounty then proceeded to speak in runes. I them informed my client that I would only attempt it as an experiment, I produced various and the client cut and pasted what ever they wanted into it and sent it of to I care not whom.

Obviously you and the mounty believe that being able to interpret a heritage statement from the verbiage of nppf is a sign of professionalism.. As far as I am concerned buried within my "not being able to see the woods for the trees" (is it cause the archaeology "setting" is buried underground) document which I hasten to add was always a draft that i was using to try and get site visits out of the heritage "professionals" is a desk based assessment based on an field archaeologist researching some archaeology around the site and visiting the site. I am though mortified that you think it's rubbish and that I should not charge for such.

Am I surprised that you would want to question my assumption that this application was an appeal? I must admit that all this paying for applications and discharge fees to get a decision to build on your own land I don't really agree with particularly when TCPA is put forward by heritage professionals as somehow protecting archaeology (and please note the use of the word archaeology and not heritage). It seems to me that the committee or case officers could just as merrily granted the decision and also failed to impose an archaeology condition after hysterics from the heritage professionals. Heres an example of pinky and perky at work with the result that no archaeology got done on the site that I am aware of. http://publicaccess.e-lindsey.gov.uk/onl...APR_112891. It seems to me that they should be screaming para128 at these applications (which they did in my clients situation) and by that I mean that the council has not got enough information to consider the application and not going down the putting any "assessment" phase post-determination with a wsi term. But I digress, my evaluation site had been the site of an appeal the year before, this was the statement from the previous appeal to an inspector for the site containing the archaeology

23. The area within the appeal site would remain in very close proximity to the scheduled feature and would have potential archaeological interest. It would also form part of the setting of the scheduled site. The guidance of the Framework is clear that in such circumstances any application for planning permission should describe the significance of a heritage asset affected, including any contribution made by its setting. An appropriate desk-based assessment is required, and potentially a field evaluation.

. Gosh its as if they have read NPPF, no mention of heritage statement and presume that what they meant by "potentially" is that the desk based might have found that the site did not need an evaluation even though it was by a scheduled monument. What the inspector did not say and what I am saying is that the planning authority should have had all this information in order to make the decision. How could the inspector find that the planning authority had made a proper decision. That decision is whats fucked by para128 "In determining applications, local planning authorities should require" but everybody in the system including the inspector probably imagines this

It seems to me from the minutes that members accepted that the application was not acceptable on heritage grounds and was not sustainably located, therefore there was no need to debate these issues in detail. Members instead considered whether there were any positive benefits that would outweigh the reasons for refusal. Clearly they felt there weren't and therefore the application was refused on the grounds given in the officer report. All seems above board, no conspiracy here.

what debate, nice use of "heritage grounds" or do you mean receptacle. Not conspiracy, Institutionalism.