 |
 |
I think John is raising an interesting issue here - the question seems to be whether we ought to be reflecting the ideal situation in an approved list or what actually happens in practice. It seems to be that if we don't record what actually happens then we will not know how much reality is diverging from the ideal. I don't think that inclusion in an 'approved list' would somehow add any measure of authority to what is, I agree, unsatisfactory but nevertheless does happen, and is usually a decision made by the planning authority, for various reasons, as outlined by Peter Iles.
Paul Gilman
Heritage Information and Records Manager
Essex County Council
-----Original Message-----
From: John Wood [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 February 2002 04:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: HBSMR - ALGAO Consultation Final Outcome list
I'm interested to see this. I do not think it should be in an approved list
of outcomes as it is thoroughly unsatisfactory. It seems to me to give the
impression to developers that an 'evaluation' is all that is needed when
PPG16 rightly says that the archaeology should be preserved in situ or
properly recorded. An evaluation is only done to establish the nature and
extent of the archaeology.
I too have come across cases where applicants will not carry out
pre-determination evaluation work, because they do not wish to incur costs
if they might be refused permission, and / or there is existing activity on
the site (in a recent case here, a major bus station), which make it hard to
do evaluations.
I suggest that
- If it is an outline application, the archaeology can be held over to be
dealt with under reserved matters.
- If it is a full application, there will be very little scope once
permission is granted to alter the layout or design of the development to
mitigate impacts on archaeology. Therefore there should be a full recording
condition. If there is no archaeology there, fine! But if there is
archaeology, the developer shouldn't be let off with thinking that an
'evaluation' satisfies the archaeological requirement.
John Wood
-----Original Message-----
From: Iles Peter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 February 2002 15:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: HBSMR - ALGAO Consultation Final Outcome list
Crispin
This does happen, but is not a 'best practice' outcome nor does it realy
comply with PPG16. Usual reason is that there is a need to make an urgent
planning decision (e.g. time is running out and the applicant will not agree
to it being defferred; that a 'valuable' development will be lost to the
district if the decision is not made; or simply that they hadn't noticed
that there was an archaeological constraint) and there is not sufficient
time to do an evaluation before the decision must be made. If its only an
outline planning application then the need for further mitigation etc. can
be dealt with during the reserved matters application (which itself can be
made conditional on the results of the evaluation being submitted with it).
otherwise you need to write a restrictive condition, based on the PPG16
condition, which makes it clear that there will need to be i)an evaluation,
and ii) further work dependant on the evaluation results. Risky as you
can't then stop all development if the archaeology merits it and the
developer is committed to signing an open cheque
not realy satisfactory but we've done it a few times.
pete iles, Lancashire SMR
-----Original Message-----
From: Crispin Flower [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 February 2002 10:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: HBSMR - ALGAO Consultation Final Outcome list
Dear all
I've been looking at the recently posted ALGAO lists to incorporate them
into HBSMR for new installations, and wondered if anyone could clarify one
issue?
In the Consultation Final Outcome list, there is:
Term: Approved subject to evaluation
Note: The decision making body has granted consent subject to the results of
an evaluation.
This seems to imply that a planning consent could be revoked depending on
the results of an evaluation. Can anyone confirm whether this is correct and
as agreed - am I misinterpreting it?
(There are other similar entries in the table - e.g. for impact assessment).
Best wishes
Crispin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Crispin Flower
exeGesIS SDM Ltd.
Great House Barn
Talgarth
Powys
LD3 0AH
Tel: 01874 712145/711145
Fax: 01874 711156
email: [log in to unmask]
URL: www.esdm.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
********************
This e-mail contains information intended for the addressee only.
It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or
professional privilege.
If you are not the addressee you are not authorised to
disseminate, distribute, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment to it
The content may be personal or contain personal opinions and
unless specifically stated or followed up in writing,
the content cannot be taken to form a contract or to be an expression
of the County Council's position.
LCC reserves the right to monitor all incoming and outgoing email
LCC has taken reasonable steps to ensure that outgoing communications do not
contain malicious software and it is your responsibility to carry out any
checks on this email before accepting the email and opening attachments.
********************
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential or privileged information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any other person unless express permission is given. If you are not a named recipient, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system. It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to check for software viruses.