18th August 2011, 12:44 PM
As I understand it the presumption in favour of development applies if there is no reason not to. If there is a reason it doesn't apply.
Which will make it more difficult to push for archaeological works if there is no known archaeology within the development footprint.
However experienced DBA writers wont find it any more difficult to prove the potential for unexpected archaeological remains to be encountered.
But again this relies on the county archaeological teams being on the ball and knocking back DBA's that don't properly consider the potential for unexpected archaeological remains within the development
Which will make it more difficult to push for archaeological works if there is no known archaeology within the development footprint.
However experienced DBA writers wont find it any more difficult to prove the potential for unexpected archaeological remains to be encountered.
But again this relies on the county archaeological teams being on the ball and knocking back DBA's that don't properly consider the potential for unexpected archaeological remains within the development