PPG16

[Hugh]

quote:Originally posted by troll

1man1desk-agreed.
I just find it mind-boggling that 16 was introduced simply as guidence.Equally hideous is the fact that it placed no new obligations on local authorities.In the final paragraph, "compromise" is the key term.How naive could one get? I do agree though, with most of you who say 16 is a huge improvement from the bad old days-I particularly capitulate in the face of comments from Achingknees.What I will say though is that the overall ethic behind 16 is morally wrong and, in practise, is nothing short of a limp cop-out on the part of central Government and speaking as a member of the public-a national shame.

It is sort of legislation now, on the basis that it has been used for so long that precedent has been established. The downside of this however is , as you said, the wording and also that it then becomes difficult to change how it is used. The government, previous and present, don't like archaeology because it's so indefinable; you never know what you have until you excavate it. Politicians seem to hate anything that can't be precisely audited or assessed (hence why, in my opinion, listed building and PPG15 are far more coherent and airtight than SM and PPG16). I don't agree that the term guidance effects its use anymore, but the wording does and could do with a facelift.

[1man1desk]

PPG16 as guidance

PPG16 is part of the planning system, and is only one of twenty-something Planning Policy Guidance documents overall. The purpose of the PPG system (currently being reformed as PPSs) is to help local authorities determine what policies they should have in their Local Plans on the given topic, and how they should implement those policies in the planning and development control process.

That means that archaeology is treated in the same way as a whole ream of other topics, and in the big picture each of those other topics is as important as archaeology. You may think that the whole system needs reform, but I would struggle to provide a convincing argument as to why archaeology should be treated differently in the planning system from other aspects of the environment.

The Local Plans and their implementation are mandated by the Town and Country Planning Acts, so decisions made under the planning system, in accordance with PPG16, do actually have the force of law behind them, even though PPG16 is not legislation in itself.

Notwithstanding that, we do actually have legislation governing archaeology, in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. It gives very strong protection to Scheduled Ancient Monuments, but this protection is only applied to very few sites. It would be at least as valid to say that the Act is inadequate as to say that PPG16 is inadequate.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

quote:Equally hideous is the fact that [PPG16] placed no new obligations on local authorities ... What I will say though is that the overall ethic behind 16 is morally wrong

The overall ethic behind PPG16 is that archaeology became a 'material factor' in the planning process; in other words, local authorities have to take it into account in their decision making, where they did not have to before.

Why is that morally wrong?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

Archaeological remains are a material consideration as are many other things. PPG16 allows LPA's to take archaeology into consideration but they do not have to, along with many other social, financial and political factors.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[1man1desk]

Not quite right, Mr Invisible. LPAs have to take all relevant 'material considerations' into account.

However, different considerations often conflict with each other, so they have to be balanced against each other. That means that the final decison may conflict with any individual material consideration, and this is perfectly legitimate as long as it was given due consideration and weight before the decision was reached.

I have recently spoken to a number of curators about this. Virtually all of them said that the local authorities were responsive to their advice, and they believed that if they recommended refusal of planning permission on archaeological grounds the authorities would usually go along with them. Interestingly, though, hardly any had ever recommended refusal because of archaeological impacts - only because of failure to provide necessary information (like evaluation reports). The authorities had nearly always backed them up on this.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Curator Kid]

I've recommended refusal purely on the grounds of unacceptable archaeological impacts. It's a rare to have to do it though. When I have done this, the LPA's have always been responsive - I suspect however that if I started suggesting refusal more frequently, I'd end up getting ignored more often. It's difficult to justify as well unless the site is obviously significant or it looks nice. It's easier to recommend refusal against lack of information being provided, because the policies back you up and the argument is much more simple.