1st June 2010, 06:36 PM
vulpes Wrote:It's true, you do mention SMC briefly much further down in that section but your first line is pretty general in emphasis. Let's put it down to a misunderstanding and agree that PPS5 guidance suggests that applicants and local planning authorities will need to - 'seek to eradicate or minimise impact through design'(i.e. PARIS) in the case of scheduled monuments. As for the rest of archaeological sites.... well, it will be up to people to make their case.
Hi
Sorry, didn't mean to push it, I didn't see your earlier post and I'm happy to agree and to leave it, cus I 'm sure one day we'll probably meet at a conference or suchlike and we really don't want to spend valuable drinking time sniping at each other. Also, nice bit of debating, I'm glad to see some passion in an argument.
Jack
Yes, preservation by not developing like your example is an option. As for the planning issues one possible solution as Vulpes suggested is use of an article 4 direction that suspends permitted development rights. This can work but enforcing it is very difficult as many people are blissfully unaware that they are not allowed to dig drainage or build walls, so in reality this can just be a paper solution. We have discussed monitoring at PARIS conferences but the main problem is that once, for example, a Tescos has been built and 5 years later the monitoring shows severe drying out of a waterlogged deposit what can really be done? Excavations pretty much out of the question and trying to mitigate through water management is like trying to plug an oil well with golf balls!
Of course it also depends on the nature of the development as some more industrial type development can be much easer to control after permission has been granted through article 4 and similar mechanisms. However, I'm not sure that economics should be a defining factor unless under circumstances such as you describe.
Steven