29th May 2010, 05:17 PM
vulpes Wrote:Is what it says, and is admittedly a poor example of approach (I blame EH). However, it may be succesfully argued under PPS5 that such an approach is not warranted for anything but the most significant remains and this is certainly something that would be weighed up on a case by case basis.
I agree entirely regarding the weight of the guidance, it is indeed a material consideration. However, it does not have to be followed to the letter and other approaches are possible and may be acceptable as long as they chime with policy. That is why the 2 documents are separate. The guidance merely represents a preferred approach and is not prescriptive. The policy is much more open and it is within this gap that consultants may thrive. As such the guidance may be left and not taken..... Policy is king. Sorry if I didn't make this clear before and I hope that this is clear.
Better?
[FONT="]Hi
I agree that the Policy itself is the most significant aspect and I also agree that the Statement does certainly accept recording as mitigation. However, the primary aim of the PPS is to "conserve" heritage assets and in terms of archaeology that is "the prospect of a future expert archaeological investigation" and as well as para 99, para. 106 clearly states that "conservation decisions will be aimed at sustaining the asset...in a condition that would best suit the prospects of a future expert investigation." So the concept of conservation of the archaeology is again stressed and in terms of "working around" sensitivities which if not directly refering to PARIS is a very strong indicator.
The ethos of both PPS5 and the supporting guidance is to conserve, and the guidance elucidates that in terms of archaeology by talking about working around and foundation design. It's not much different from PPG16 in that respect except the terminology has changed because of grouping buildings and archaeology together.
The guidance is very likely to be taken pretty seriously by planning officers and members so I think paras. 99 et al will be the basis for decisions. Also as you say consultants may very well point to those paras in ES and other planning documents. [/FONT]
Steven