PPS5 PARIs

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]Am I alone in this thinking?
[/SIZE]

I don’t think that you are alone steve

….but somewhere along the precedence route the call for mitigation was introduced and you have invited the “developer” to ask.

Thing is, can you who are there to consider the effects of the planning application second guess what future permitted developments might be. Maybe in all applications the potential future development rights should be outlined and any evaluation made to consider those areas.. another case against watching briefs

[vulpes]

On a more general point what ever happened to BAJRites researching a little before posting......

I don't know Kevin, but I have noticed that I only find myself posting now to correct incorrect assertions.

Unitof1 - in relation to your unusually lucid post. No we can't predict the future, but it is possible (but not widely done.... yet) for planning authorities to remove permitted development rights in specified areas. PPS5 also states that non-scheduled sites of equivalent significance merit the same consideration as scheduled sites.

[BAJR]

On a more general point what ever happened to BAJRites researching a little before posting......

I do wonder... more worrying if any poster is a PO or manager in a company... know your profession.

[Dinosaur]

...The latest 'weapon' in the war against knotweed is actually an aphid that keeps knotweed in check by sap-sucking.....so maybe 2m remediation could be a thing of the past and insects could protect the past.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthne...tweed.html

On a more general point what ever happened to BAJRites researching a little before posting......

FYI The wee Japanese has only been issued a licence for a 'limited trial', with no guarantee it'll pass (it'll probably find something tastier to eat anyway out in the British countryside) - that could take years, in the meantime the uncontrolled trashing of the universe will continue - we've just been doing a job where knotweed came higher up the constraint-tree than the archaeology, we just got to dig what was left after the 'contaminated ground' had been removed......(ie not much)...:0

[Steven]

I don't know Kevin, but I have noticed that I only find myself posting now to correct incorrect assertions.
.

Hi
More importantly what ever happened to BAJRites not being extremely smug smart-asses and recognising that if someone has a different opinion on a matter it does not mean that they are automatically incorrect?

[vulpes]

Steven, suggest you go away and re-read PPS5 and the guidance. It's quite clear that you've misunderstood that particular passage and its significance. As for the smug charge, well, I've been called worse things. I'd rather be smug and informed than petty and ignornat, but each to their own. :face-kiss:

[Steven]

Steven, suggest you go away and re-read PPS5 and the guidance. It's quite clear that you've misunderstood that particular passage and its significance. As for the smug charge, well, I've been called worse things. I'd rather be smug and informed than petty and ignornat, but each to their own. :face-kiss:

Hi
I'm very sorry but the statement about PARIS under foundations is pretty clear-cut and represent a guiding principle in the determination of a planning application affecting a heritage asset. It clearly states that an authority NEEDS to:

1 understand the significance of the heritage asset and the impact of the proposal, which refers to applying Policy HE6 i.e. pre-validation stage assessment.
2 to take proper account of proposals that do not affect the significance
3 to apply PARIS if possible

I agree that HE12 (recording an asset) is clearly a viable mitigation BUT because of statement 3 PARIS NEEDS to be attempted during the consideration of the proposal through design principles. Therefore, the guidance indicates that PARIS through design is a desirable outcome and indeed goes further and suggests (in my opinion) an unfavourable style of preservation.

I think you should be more flexible in your outlook on other people's opinions and perhaps rather than simply shutting discussions down with statements, which make it seem that your word is final, you should accept that you MAY be wrong sometimes.

I may be "pretty ignorant" but my original post was MY opinion and based on my reading of the principles put forward within PPS5 itself, for example the Governments objectives to CONSERVE heritage assets as well as the statements in papa. 99 of the guidance. Which, by the way actually has a reasonable level of weight because it is multi department document representing the views of Government as well as their advisors and therefore has as much influence as the descriptive passages that back up Local Plan Policies (for example).

It's fine to disagree with my OPINION but to presume YOUR opinion is the only accurate one is rather blinkered. As for my smug comment it referred more to the manner in which you respond than your views, which I am very willing to discuss, but you make that difficult because of your style.

[FONT=&quot]I?m perfectly willing to concede that I may be wrong on my idea that PARIS is a preferred option BUT more reasoned discussion is the way to show me I?m wrong, not dismissive statements.[/FONT]

[vulpes]

[SIZE=3]Seek to eradicate or minimise impact through design (for example, foundations that span sensitive areas rather than penetrate them).

[/SIZE]

Is what it says, and is admittedly a poor example of approach (I blame EH). However, it may be succesfully argued under PPS5 that such an approach is not warranted for anything but the most significant remains and this is certainly something that would be weighed up on a case by case basis.

I agree entirely regarding the weight of the guidance, it is indeed a material consideration. However, it does not have to be followed to the letter and other approaches are possible and may be acceptable as long as they chime with policy. That is why the 2 documents are separate. The guidance merely represents a preferred approach and is not prescriptive. The policy is much more open and it is within this gap that consultants may thrive. As such the guidance may be left and not taken..... Policy is king. Sorry if I didn't make this clear before and I hope that this is clear.

Better?

[Steven]

Is what it says, and is admittedly a poor example of approach (I blame EH). However, it may be succesfully argued under PPS5 that such an approach is not warranted for anything but the most significant remains and this is certainly something that would be weighed up on a case by case basis.

I agree entirely regarding the weight of the guidance, it is indeed a material consideration. However, it does not have to be followed to the letter and other approaches are possible and may be acceptable as long as they chime with policy. That is why the 2 documents are separate. The guidance merely represents a preferred approach and is not prescriptive. The policy is much more open and it is within this gap that consultants may thrive. As such the guidance may be left and not taken..... Policy is king. Sorry if I didn't make this clear before and I hope that this is clear.

Better?

[FONT=&quot]Hi
I agree that the Policy itself is the most significant aspect and I also agree that the Statement does certainly accept recording as mitigation. However, the primary aim of the PPS is to "conserve" heritage assets and in terms of archaeology that is "the prospect of a future expert archaeological investigation" and as well as para 99, para. 106 clearly states that "conservation decisions will be aimed at sustaining the asset...in a condition that would best suit the prospects of a future expert investigation." So the concept of conservation of the archaeology is again stressed and in terms of "working around" sensitivities which if not directly refering to PARIS is a very strong indicator.

The ethos of both PPS5 and the supporting guidance is to conserve, and the guidance elucidates that in terms of archaeology by talking about working around and foundation design. It's not much different from PPG16 in that respect except the terminology has changed because of grouping buildings and archaeology together.

The guidance is very likely to be taken pretty seriously by planning officers and members so I think paras. 99 et al will be the basis for decisions. Also as you say consultants may very well point to those paras in ES and other planning documents. [/FONT]

[BAJR]

[FONT=&quot]the prospect of a future expert archaeological investigation[/FONT]

and in 20 years...

[FONT=&quot]the prospect of a future expert archaeological investigation[/FONT]

and in 20 more years

[FONT=&quot]the prospect of a future expert archaeological investigation[/FONT]

etc...

Preserve.. but I do think the idea of archaeology is to study... quite difficult if the primary aim is to not touch anything because of

[FONT=&quot]the prospect of a future expert archaeological investigation[/FONT]