18th August 2009, 03:20 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Unitof1
MontyQuote:quote:I agree totally...very encouraging ......and something all the IfA bashers should read !!
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...-03-09.pdf
I don?t see whats wrong with discharging conditions with just an archive but then I just like to dig. I think that most of the post excavation should be done and paid for by academics if they can be bothered some time in the future at their leisure. Surely FAME should be arguing that they have spent the money on digging and dont have much if any for the post ex but that some archive level is adequate Is Bedford toxic yet? Come on curators discharge on an archive, it would definatly create more digging jobs.
Quote:quote:? there is pressure to discharge conditions early, eg before post-excavation work is
completed, especially as banks are refusing to release second-phase lending until firstphase
conditions are discharged
? one authority has prematurely discharged a condition such that the developer has
reneged on px funding and is potentially defending a charge of negligence
? some LPAs are prepared to discharge on the basis of a separate legal agreement
between the developer and the archaeologist
oh the presure, its so heavey,i am so important, so is my pension
I would much rather that the administrator chucked all the diggers hard work in the skip than discharge the condition, because standards are so important arnt they. Save the archive, its a pidgin..
Hi
I don't think this IFA note makes legal sense! If a condition is discharged on the basis of a WSI (which includes post-excavation) then it is legally enforceable! The fact that the condition has been "discharged" doesn't mean anything. The developer still has to carry out the work or they will be breeching planning permission. Its exactly the same as agreeing a landscape scheme to discharge a condition, until the scheme has actually been implemented the condition still applies.
Steven