10th January 2007, 03:31 PM
In peepeeG the statement is particularly intended for work for diggers -excavation ....so why dont they just say so and why is it being applied to watching briefs or evaluations?
â30. In cases when planning authorities have decided that planning permission may be granted but wish to secure the provision of archaeological excavation and the subsequent recording of the remains, it is open to them to do so by the use of a negative condition i.e. a condition prohibiting the carrying out of development until such time as works or other action, e.g. an excavation, have been carried out by a third party.â
Not finding it in the section after the hole is dug
And warming up the Barker principle of EIA before development consent can a watching brief mitigation which might find significant archaeology be an assessment of the impact. I think that you cant have a watching brief until there has been an evaluation more work for diggers, or a dba -.
leading question: can public inquires be seen as a part of the âdevelopment consentâ process
â30. In cases when planning authorities have decided that planning permission may be granted but wish to secure the provision of archaeological excavation and the subsequent recording of the remains, it is open to them to do so by the use of a negative condition i.e. a condition prohibiting the carrying out of development until such time as works or other action, e.g. an excavation, have been carried out by a third party.â
Not finding it in the section after the hole is dug
And warming up the Barker principle of EIA before development consent can a watching brief mitigation which might find significant archaeology be an assessment of the impact. I think that you cant have a watching brief until there has been an evaluation more work for diggers, or a dba -.
leading question: can public inquires be seen as a part of the âdevelopment consentâ process