PPS5 PARIs

[Steven]

The really key bit of the PPS is the government's objectives (Sections 6-7). As already stated the guidance is just that - Guidance - and represents a recommended route to achieving the objectives and policy outcomes set out in the PPS - it being reasonable to propose and follow other routes than those set out. Decisions regarding heritage assets are always going to be weighed against their significance and this will apply to PARIS as much as to any other strategy. The objectives make this clear - to skip to the 2nd set:



The first bit of this objective makes it clear that decisions to conserve should bear in mind the significance of assets - a grey area which will no doubt be filled with much debate - but which certainly does not mean that excavation will be entirely replaced by PARIS. Fundamentally, as with PPG16 it is likely that PARIS will often be a solution adopted for only the most significant remains.

The third and final objective acknowledges that heritage assets will be lost but at least does not perpetuate the lie that recording represents 'preservation by record'.



I would agree with the government's assertion that PPS5 does not represent a weakening of PPG16 principles, but it does potentially introduce many more factors to be weighed when making decisions and also many more options that may be taken.

[FONT=&quot]Hi
I never suggested that PARIS would entirely replace excavation. What I did was summarise that due to the conservation ethic of PPS5 combined with the very clear considerations set out in the guidance (para. 99 No.3 which as you yourself recognise is the "preferred approach") indicates that PARIS is viewed as a preferred option.

I never suggested that PARIS was the only outcome, I said that it was the "preferred" outcome, I didn't go into when, or under what circumstances, or even mention significance. My main thrust of the post was to discuss the "foundation" design approach and its limitation.

However, you decided that all three aspects of para. 99 were meant to "considered alongside" each other. Which I now presume you see is not the case as they refer to different aspects of consideration (assessment use and finaly PARIS). So rather than "clear it up" for us, you actually misrepresented that particular piece of guidance. You then went on to repeat this in the hope "that it may sink in this time". Then you posted about how you only post to "correct incorrect assertions", despite actually having just done so yourself.

So in light of this do you wish to perhaps apologise for the "petty and ignorant" comment and accept that you are just as flawed as any of us and that perhaps your posts did come across as rather self-satisfied?

Personally I will apologise to you for my post when I called you smug, it was a bit nasty and I regret it. Sorry[/FONT]