26th March 2010, 11:36 PM
The PPS is a material consideration and a statement of policy, which means it has to be taken into consideration when applications are determined. The Practice Guide specifically states that it is not policy- and does not prescribe a particular methodology but 'may' be 'material' in planning decisions. This is a very good thing as the PPS contains (I hope) everything needed to carry through existing practice into the future. The Practice Guide is mostly OK but some of it - eg the idea that WSIs should be set in stone prior to determination and the proposed condition wording, drops the ball a little. However as this part of the document is 'guidance' rather than policy it should leave room for alternative practice to be agreed and develop.
Regarding the phrases 'relavant local authority specialists' and 'appropriately qualified and experienced individuals ' these are both useful. To deal with the breadth of the 'significance' referred to in the PPS its clear that the LPAs will need access to a range of specialists - as now not just archaeologists but building conservation professionals.
Some of this discussion seems to move towards how 'legally enforceable' the PPS will be - well PPG16 was never really 'legally enforceable' regarding undesignated archaeology - the only trully meaningful 'legal' controls in the historic environment apply to Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings where breaches are criminal offences subject to statutory control- planning policy is just enforceable in the terms of planning system - ie if you have a planning condition and you breach it (for instance by not following the WSI and producing a report) the applicant will not have their condition discharged and ultimately suffer the grief of trying to sell property with undischarged planning obligations (ever tried buying a house with a dodgy restrictive covenant?). So nothing has really changed there either.
Regarding the phrases 'relavant local authority specialists' and 'appropriately qualified and experienced individuals ' these are both useful. To deal with the breadth of the 'significance' referred to in the PPS its clear that the LPAs will need access to a range of specialists - as now not just archaeologists but building conservation professionals.
Some of this discussion seems to move towards how 'legally enforceable' the PPS will be - well PPG16 was never really 'legally enforceable' regarding undesignated archaeology - the only trully meaningful 'legal' controls in the historic environment apply to Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings where breaches are criminal offences subject to statutory control- planning policy is just enforceable in the terms of planning system - ie if you have a planning condition and you breach it (for instance by not following the WSI and producing a report) the applicant will not have their condition discharged and ultimately suffer the grief of trying to sell property with undischarged planning obligations (ever tried buying a house with a dodgy restrictive covenant?). So nothing has really changed there either.