24th August 2013, 07:44 AM
BAJR Wrote:However... the HER is made up of already apid for information... indeed my info. ( perhaps not there ) and why should the public pay to see this info.
One way or another the public pays....if the service is to remain open then in the absence of the developer paying, the tab is picked up either by taxation paid to the government (through its grant to NMM) or by the council taxpayer through the contributing authorities. Either way there is no 'free lunch' for the public...of course I'd agree that the burden should be spread as wide as possible, but I think if there has to be a charge then the polluter should pay. Members of the public on Merseyside need to stand up and object to the planning authority making decisions based on insufficient information if that is the case....if a decision was made that affected woodland, open space, green belt without full consideration there would be an outcry!!
Before PPG16, archaeologists and friends of archaeology had to be vigilant to ensure that sites did not slip through the net. We need to return to that situation if the planning authority is failing to pick up sites in danger...
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...