3rd November 2008, 01:04 PM
OK found the email from the lawyers. The decision notice containing the conditions will make reference to the policies under which the decision was made. So the archaeological condition will reference the archaeological policies, these are based upon PPG16 that clearly places the onus onto the developer to pay for archaeological work.
I would paste the full email here, but it was really quite patronising.
There are cases where the condition is absurd and cannot be enforced, for example building recording conditions on greenfield developments. This is the problem with databases of conditions held by local councils that the archaeologist may not be able to access and change. Some planning officers may well keep their own lists of conditions that they paste into their decision notices. Ideally the only, and standard condition, should be the PPG16 condition.
I really do not mean to be rude about anyone who has made comments earlier, but there is obviously a considerable, potential liability issue when archaeologists are advising on the meaning of conditions without taking legal advice or advice from a qualified planner.
I would paste the full email here, but it was really quite patronising.
There are cases where the condition is absurd and cannot be enforced, for example building recording conditions on greenfield developments. This is the problem with databases of conditions held by local councils that the archaeologist may not be able to access and change. Some planning officers may well keep their own lists of conditions that they paste into their decision notices. Ideally the only, and standard condition, should be the PPG16 condition.
I really do not mean to be rude about anyone who has made comments earlier, but there is obviously a considerable, potential liability issue when archaeologists are advising on the meaning of conditions without taking legal advice or advice from a qualified planner.