16th March 2009, 01:04 PM
We also received a copy of this letter, sent out to every county archaeologist in the country I suspect. Whilst I sympathise with their situation I have to admit that I have no further information on the application or the viability of the dog training school and as such do not feel it is correct to comment. I also feel that it is inappropriate to write to local government archaeological officers and county archaeologists asking them to get involved. What percentage of the local community uses either the field school or the dog training area.
It is a totally different situation if an archaeological field school serving 90% of the local community is forced to close because of a greyhound training school that trains dogs from all over the county than if a local dog training centre, used exclusively be the local community, cannot go ahead because of issues regarding an archaeological field school training people from all over the county. Im not sure that archaeological professionals, an certainly not independent local government archaeological officers, should jump on this just because archaeology is mentioned in one of the businesses names.
This is a matter for the local community and not for the archaeological world as a whole. I really doubt that letters of objection coming from Scotland are really going to affect any planning decision. In very much the same way that an objection over a Scottish planning application on the grounds that it affects the views of someone living in Kent also should not really be considered. Local planners are going to take into account the impact on current residents and businesses but are not going to take letters seriously from people all over the uk ona matter such as this.
I cannot imagine what 20 dogs sounds like, although I did grow up in the countryside and wonder if it is anything like the 180 dogs of the Hampshire Hunt, kennelled next door to where I grew up, 180 cows, 1500 sheep and 100000 pigs farmed by Danepack in the fields behind me. Noise was an issue but not so we couldn?t hear ourselves think or talk.
As the field unit charges ?35 per day for instruction that most local units would provide for free if you volunteered for them than at least they can afford to move unlike most actual units.
ten years on and still no bottom
It is a totally different situation if an archaeological field school serving 90% of the local community is forced to close because of a greyhound training school that trains dogs from all over the county than if a local dog training centre, used exclusively be the local community, cannot go ahead because of issues regarding an archaeological field school training people from all over the county. Im not sure that archaeological professionals, an certainly not independent local government archaeological officers, should jump on this just because archaeology is mentioned in one of the businesses names.
This is a matter for the local community and not for the archaeological world as a whole. I really doubt that letters of objection coming from Scotland are really going to affect any planning decision. In very much the same way that an objection over a Scottish planning application on the grounds that it affects the views of someone living in Kent also should not really be considered. Local planners are going to take into account the impact on current residents and businesses but are not going to take letters seriously from people all over the uk ona matter such as this.
I cannot imagine what 20 dogs sounds like, although I did grow up in the countryside and wonder if it is anything like the 180 dogs of the Hampshire Hunt, kennelled next door to where I grew up, 180 cows, 1500 sheep and 100000 pigs farmed by Danepack in the fields behind me. Noise was an issue but not so we couldn?t hear ourselves think or talk.
As the field unit charges ?35 per day for instruction that most local units would provide for free if you volunteered for them than at least they can afford to move unlike most actual units.
ten years on and still no bottom