BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: 'Neighbourhood' planning powers to be trialled
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Reported on the BBC News at 10pm (this evening) during the South Today portion of the program was a story relating to "localism" and planning. Being trialled are "Neighbourhood" planning powers at the local level. The report cited Cerne Abbas (home of the Cerne Giant) as a "localism" trial area. A brief web search returned the following info regarding the trial areas:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-politics-12941407
This could end archaeology as we know it!

"And new "neighbourhood orders" would allow them to relax regulations on certain developments on particular sites, such as side extensions and loft conversions, and grant automatic planning permission."

Open for corruption much? Pressure from the construction companies? Back-handers? Nepotism?
Info from the Rescue meeting on Sat April 2 and Food for thought:

Rescue and “Mortimer” see members within their local areas monitoring the media to see how cuts are affecting their areas. Rescue and Mortimer have asked to be kept informed.

A key aspect was how deregulation through the “Big Society” concept would be promoted. What effects will the implementation of this concept have on PPS5 and what will this mean for archaeological statutory bodies, local authorities and parish councils? (i.e Closure of Merseyside Archaeological Services & Gloucester Council Next…Wink As mentioned in the BBC News blurb (see above link) “plans must comply with national planning policy, law and local strategy”.

What does “localism” really consist of and mean as a policy?

Rescue and Mortimer spoke in favour of supporting the maintenance of full statutory services through dialog with local authorities and museums.
moreno Wrote:What does “localism” really consist of and mean as a policy?

As far as I can tell, in combination with it's big brother 'Big Society' it seems to be a cunning plan to reduce the workload on local and national bodies by devolving decisions from elected persons (and their advisors) to those members of the public with the time and inclination to get involved. I'm not clear what the real benefit of this is as I don't see a corresponding reduction in the amount of national and local taxation being levied.

Oh, silly me, we'll need the dosh to pay for all the people who will be made redundant.
if only the public with time and inclination to get involved new to ask their local archaeologist - whomever they might be
P Prentice Wrote:if only the public with time and inclination to get involved new to ask their local archaeologist - whomever they might be

Out of sheer coincidence, two of us (archaeologists) lived in a small village in Oxfordshire. Every now and again, down the local, when someone was having a chat about their extention we would drop in the convo "have you any archaeological conditions on your planning?" Blank stare


And straight from the Gov planning portal:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/inyoura...hbourhood/

Statement provides iinformation on reforms and the localism bill
[quote=moreno]Out of sheer coincidence, two of us (archaeologists) lived in a small village in Oxfordshire. Every now and again, down the local, when someone was having a chat about their extention we would drop in the convo "have you any archaeological conditions on your planning?" Blank stare

so which ever way you look at the problem the task remains the same - get the public on our side and listening to us
Quote:so which ever way you look at the problem the task remains the same - get the public on our side and listening to us

Aye!

I should have added to that last post, that we at every opportunity make people aware of planning and archaeology. Something that I am still actively involved in :face-approve:
moreno Wrote:Out of sheer coincidence, two of us (archaeologists) lived in a small village in Oxfordshire. Every now and again, down the local, when someone was having a chat about their extention we would drop in the convo "have you any archaeological conditions on your planning?" Blank stare

Not surprising, 95% of planning applications have no archaeological conditions attached. The 5% that do include very few extensions.From experience in a former life, in architecture, between 1990 and 2004 there was only ever one archaeological condition on an application by our practice.

As for the Bill, sheer madness. Can we expect a rash of flat-roofed extensions and bulky loft conversions, even bigger than the current permitted developments, all over the country? Presumably this lunacy will not apply in Conservation Areas???

I wonder though who or what the "independent qualified person" is supposed to be? A planning consultant?
the invisible man Wrote:Not surprising, 95% of planning applications have no archaeological conditions attached. The 5% that do include very few extensions.From experience in a former life, in architecture, between 1990 and 2004 there was only ever one archaeological condition on an application by our practice.

I should have mentioned ponds, and new builds (very minimal). The particular village I was refering to is located in an area with considerable archaeology, in a conservation area, area of outstanding natural beauty etc...lots of restrictions but very little awareness (by the people living there) of what this means.

Quote:As for the Bill, sheer madness. Can we expect a rash of flat-roofed extensions and bulky loft conversions, even bigger than the current permitted developments, all over the country? Presumably this lunacy will not apply in Conservation Areas???
Hmmm, this is part of the problem, not knowing to what effect this localism bill will have.

Quote:I wonder though who or what the "independent qualified person" is supposed to be? A planning consultant?
Out of all the text in that statement, this is what caught my eye as well. To me it reads "Vague, but with a requirement...will let ya know"
Pages: 1 2