BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Planning disaster
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
This move could see future clients being asked to do nothing.As it is, clients are aided and abetted by consultants who assist them in their quest to reduce the legal "minimum" further.Rather than having a pop at consultants as usual, I am merely pointing out that their perceived role in the game now seems to be about to be enshrined in "law"-i.e, you wont have to play games in your clients "best interests" anymore simply because the planning system wont ask them to do anything as(according to Baker) it stands in the way of business.I`m with Mercenary on this....we are truly stuffed now.What little glimmer of hope the hopeless planning fiasco did afford us is about to be urinated on by big business.:face-huh:

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posted by Troll:
Quote:quote:Rather than having a pop at consultants as usual, I am merely pointing out that their perceived role in the game now seems to be about to be enshrined in "law
That might be a problem, if the actual role of most consultants bore any real resemblance to the way it is 'perceived' by yourself - which is completely unrecognisable to me, as an actual consultant.

True, consultants are commercially-minded (just like every contracting unit in the country). However, if we were rapaciously pursuing commercial interests against those of the archaeology, we would be strongly opposed to these changes. A complicated, slow planning process has much more opportunity for consultancy fees in it than a quick, simple one.

Personally, I am neutral on the changes, as I have not yet investigated them sufficiently to form an opinion.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished
Been through this tired emotion-tennis with you before sir and not remotely interested in doing it again.The consultants role is to work in the clients best interest.This new assault on the ridiculous planning system that we currently are shafted by will simply not require the client to do anything.After years of watching consultants reduce archaeology to a mere "obstruction" to mutual profit, you don`t convince me.Rather than invest an entire thread to playing "I know better than you do games" perhaps the real threat here could be discussed? I should have known better than to use the world of consultancy as an example of minimising the planning obligations of clients:face-huh:

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posted by Troll:
Quote:quote:Been through this tired emotion-tennis with you before sir and not remotely interested in doing it again.
Yes, but Troll, you keep kicking it off again by taking a gratuitous pop at consultants, blaming them for anything at all that you don't like. If you don't want to get in an argument about it, then leave it alone.
[
Quote:quote:The consultants role is to work in the clients best interest
Just like any archaeological unit. Just like yourself, in fact. If you are paid by a client, it is your legal, contractual and moral duty to work in his best interest. If you don't like that, then change jobs. You could go and work as a curator, for instance - they have no duty to a client.
quote]I should have known better than to use the world of consultancy as an example of minimising the planning obligations of clients[/quote]
I agree - you could have used a word that was relevant to the topic in question, instead.


1man1desk

to let, fully furnished
I`m sorry-I really cant be bothered.Big Grin

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Can't you two just get a room!? :face-confused:
Greetings-like I say-its utterly pointless and I really don`t want to be drawn.Big Grin

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Yet again I seem to be working in a different system to a lot of people.

At present with targets for determining planning application the net result should be more time to do the archaeology. Unless application are totally complete they are unlikely to get registered let alone considered. Once registered if there is something which is missing then the applicant will be asked to withdraw the application and re-submit it with the required info or accept a refusal.

The net result is that it taking longer to get through planning than it did a few years ago.

Peter



Of course sir-thats County specific and depends on the stance of the local Curator/LPA.From one county to the next-your absolutely right, we may just as well be living in different systems.:face-huh:

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Sorry Peter, that may be the way it is supposed to work, but the pressure on meeting targets is too great for the districts, and certainly in my County and it simply doesn't happen like that.

Once an application is registered, the planning authority has eight weeks to make a determination. The fact that the application may be revealed to be incomplete after registry does not mean it is removed from the statistics, so the inclination is to make a decision anyway if possible. Lack of archaeoogical information has only been deemed of sufficient importance to ask the applicant to withdraw the application if there are a number of other ommissions. On its own, it appears not to be enough and a decision is made on the application. I can't think of a single example where a lack of archaeological information has been used as the only reason for a withdrawl - but I can think of a lot where a panicky case officer has contacted me and asked if a condition could be added to a permission in lieu of a proper initial submission, so an application can be approved within the approaching deadline.
Pages: 1 2 3 4