Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
The only legal protection an archaeological resource receives if it is not scheduled, is that which is granted through the planning process; that is, after a condition is placed on the development. Therefore I don't think that you could be prosecuted for digging up archaeology unless the activity you were digging it up for violated planning law (i.e. it turns out that the archaeological work was enabling work for a development that requires planning permission) in which case you aren't being prosecuted for destroying archaeology, but for thumbing your nose at the planning process.
I have not yet read the PPS statements in detail (it is on my task list for next week - and has been for many weeks!), it will be interesting to see if it materially changes any of this....
\"don\'t panic!\"
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
9th April 2010, 10:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 9th April 2010, 10:36 AM by Steven.)
hurting-back Wrote:The only legal protection an archaeological resource receives if it is not scheduled, is that which is granted through the planning process; that is, after a condition is placed on the development. Therefore I don't think that you could be prosecuted for digging up archaeology unless the activity you were digging it up for violated planning law (i.e. it turns out that the archaeological work was enabling work for a development that requires planning permission) in which case you aren't being prosecuted for destroying archaeology, but for thumbing your nose at the planning process.
I have not yet read the PPS statements in detail (it is on my task list for next week - and has been for many weeks!), it will be interesting to see if it materially changes any of this....
Hi
Pretty much spot on.
The alternative though is that no-one is allowed to do anything (e.g. dig a garden pond or double dig a veg patch etc in their OWN garden) without explicit permission from the "Heritage Asset Grubenfurher"! JOKE
PPS5 clearly states that where there is evidence of deliberate neglect or damage to an asset in the hope of obtaining consent the resultant deteriorated state of the asset should NOT be a factor taken into account in any decision. So even if a site was trashed, the applicant would have to proceed on the basis that the site was still extant.
Going into unknown territory here but stay with me....
The implications of this PPS5 statement are that the application would be treated as if the site was still there so an applicant who destroyed a site prior to applying for planning permission could end up with a refusal of permission on the grounds that any permission granted would be impossible to implement because it would be impossible to discharge the archaeological condition required for permission to be granted.
Steven
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Quote:
The implications of this PPS5 statement are that the application would be treated as if the site was still there so an applicant who destroyed a site prior to applying for planning permission could end up with a refusal of permission on the grounds that any permission granted would be impossible to implement because it would be impossible to discharge the archaeological condition required for permission to be granted.
what would be the archaeological condition that would be impossible to discharge?
