4th November 2008, 08:15 PM
I have to say I think the lawyer is incorrect. It all depends upon the exact wording of the condition and the informative. Policies being quoted - which I have never seen - do not make much difference.
Access conditions are a pain and are relatively common.
I would argue that in the context of PPg 16 an access condition is unneccessary - the development would not be refused permission if this did not take place.
There is no obligation to employ an archaeologist to comply with an access condition. The informative with the condition usually specifies that the condition will allow somebody from the LPA to visit the site. Sometimes the LPA is specified in the condition.
As to wandering bands of archaeologists - firstly they would have to prove they actually archaeologists before access was granted to them. Secondly there is no obligation for a developer to stop work.
There is also the point that a planning condition is unreasonable if you are dependent on a thiord party.
Peter Wardle
Access conditions are a pain and are relatively common.
I would argue that in the context of PPg 16 an access condition is unneccessary - the development would not be refused permission if this did not take place.
There is no obligation to employ an archaeologist to comply with an access condition. The informative with the condition usually specifies that the condition will allow somebody from the LPA to visit the site. Sometimes the LPA is specified in the condition.
As to wandering bands of archaeologists - firstly they would have to prove they actually archaeologists before access was granted to them. Secondly there is no obligation for a developer to stop work.
There is also the point that a planning condition is unreasonable if you are dependent on a thiord party.
Peter Wardle