10th February 2009, 11:08 PM
Reasons for this are probably
1) 1979 Act is still in force (yes...) and under that act, YAT are the competent body (or similar- I can't remember the exact wording) who have to be notified, and potentially who decide what is required.
2) the 1979 act refers to 'work in one of these areas that disturbs, tips material on or floods the ground'. This is not a planning prompt, but refers to all work, including that which is carried out under PD rights.
3) PPG 16 still rules for planning in York because a) most developers would prefer to have a process that is staged and carried out on a timetable that they have some contol over, rather than YAT turning up on day 1 and saying 'stop', like they did in the 1980s, and b) while YAT have the right to step in, the developer doesn't have to pay them to do it, so now that they aren't funded directly by central government, they'd have to be pretty sure of external funding to actually step in.
4) the situation in the AAI's, particularly York were the reason for the Ove Arup/Martin Carver report that was the precursor of PPG16, and really introduced the idea of mitigation by design. York CC were actually one of the main drivers for this as it was felt that the designation was driving developers away. And yes, York has its own archaeologist, who is very much active in DC and PPG16 work.
Keep up lad!
(edited for coherence and sarcasm)
1) 1979 Act is still in force (yes...) and under that act, YAT are the competent body (or similar- I can't remember the exact wording) who have to be notified, and potentially who decide what is required.
2) the 1979 act refers to 'work in one of these areas that disturbs, tips material on or floods the ground'. This is not a planning prompt, but refers to all work, including that which is carried out under PD rights.
3) PPG 16 still rules for planning in York because a) most developers would prefer to have a process that is staged and carried out on a timetable that they have some contol over, rather than YAT turning up on day 1 and saying 'stop', like they did in the 1980s, and b) while YAT have the right to step in, the developer doesn't have to pay them to do it, so now that they aren't funded directly by central government, they'd have to be pretty sure of external funding to actually step in.
4) the situation in the AAI's, particularly York were the reason for the Ove Arup/Martin Carver report that was the precursor of PPG16, and really introduced the idea of mitigation by design. York CC were actually one of the main drivers for this as it was felt that the designation was driving developers away. And yes, York has its own archaeologist, who is very much active in DC and PPG16 work.
Keep up lad!
(edited for coherence and sarcasm)