PPS5 PARIs

[Steven]

Steven, suggest you go away and re-read PPS5 and the guidance. It's quite clear that you've misunderstood that particular passage and its significance. As for the smug charge, well, I've been called worse things. I'd rather be smug and informed than petty and ignornat, but each to their own. :face-kiss:

Hi
I'm very sorry but the statement about PARIS under foundations is pretty clear-cut and represent a guiding principle in the determination of a planning application affecting a heritage asset. It clearly states that an authority NEEDS to:

1 understand the significance of the heritage asset and the impact of the proposal, which refers to applying Policy HE6 i.e. pre-validation stage assessment.
2 to take proper account of proposals that do not affect the significance
3 to apply PARIS if possible

I agree that HE12 (recording an asset) is clearly a viable mitigation BUT because of statement 3 PARIS NEEDS to be attempted during the consideration of the proposal through design principles. Therefore, the guidance indicates that PARIS through design is a desirable outcome and indeed goes further and suggests (in my opinion) an unfavourable style of preservation.

I think you should be more flexible in your outlook on other people's opinions and perhaps rather than simply shutting discussions down with statements, which make it seem that your word is final, you should accept that you MAY be wrong sometimes.

I may be "pretty ignorant" but my original post was MY opinion and based on my reading of the principles put forward within PPS5 itself, for example the Governments objectives to CONSERVE heritage assets as well as the statements in papa. 99 of the guidance. Which, by the way actually has a reasonable level of weight because it is multi department document representing the views of Government as well as their advisors and therefore has as much influence as the descriptive passages that back up Local Plan Policies (for example).

It's fine to disagree with my OPINION but to presume YOUR opinion is the only accurate one is rather blinkered. As for my smug comment it referred more to the manner in which you respond than your views, which I am very willing to discuss, but you make that difficult because of your style.

[FONT=&quot]I?m perfectly willing to concede that I may be wrong on my idea that PARIS is a preferred option BUT more reasoned discussion is the way to show me I?m wrong, not dismissive statements.[/FONT]