Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Planning as proportion of developer funding
#11
I was pointing out that in the British archaeological education business the boom seems to be going on with a little bit of a side point that the academics don?t seem to do year placements with British archaeological companies. Now the consultants might like this, I wonder what happens in civil engineering?
Reply
#12
Quote:quote:Originally posted by tom wilson

Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
Do you stat undertakers like gas water and electricity that operate via codes of conduct which refer to PPG 16?

You seem intent on nit-picking over semantics, which is a bit rich coming from someone who doesn't proof-read.

As you will know, not all projects are subject to the same procedures, and many procedures come with different standards, different methods and classifications for assessing importance, different terminology, and different consultees. PPG16 is not the be-all and end-all.

I could re-phrase the question in the OP, but that could cause yet more confusion, so I'll spell it out again here:
What proportion of developer-funded archaeology comes under Environmental Statements, permitted developments etc. rather than being guided solely by PPG16 under the watchful eye of the county mountie?

freeburmarangers.org

I can't answer your question, but I would point out that all the DTI consent projects I have been involved with had 'county mountie' watchful eyes on them. It's just that they were advisors to the DTI rather than to the Planning Authority.

Gas pipe lines, water pipelines, electricity, roads - I've done all of these (and more) and they were involved just as much as those projects that have gone through the Local Authority planning systems. In some cases they were more involved!

It might be worth contacting Kenny directly and asking him what his criteria are and whether he has the information you were asking about.
Reply
#13
Posted by DrPeterWardle:
Quote:quote:Infra structure projects are part of the planning system full stop
Not necessarily so. The planning system and the reach of PPG16 are both, stricty speaking, limited to projects that require planning permission.

That can include large infrastructure projects (e.g. large highway schemes put forward by a County Council rather than by the Highways Agency), but it excludes infrastructure projects that are authorised by central government rather than through a planning application (e.g. all Highways Agency projects, rail projects, etc).

Posted by Tom Wilson:
Quote:quote:What proportion of developer-funded archaeology comes under Environmental Statements, permitted developments etc. rather than being guided solely by PPG16 under the watchful eye of the county mountie?
Most Environmental Statements are actually done within the planning system (i.e. they are submitted together with a planning application), although they only amount to around 3% of the total number of planning applications.

Actually, the 95% statistic sounds about right to me, if you are measuring by number of projects. The planning-system projects would include some very big ones, but the majority would be small, whereas most of those outside the planning system would be for large schemes (although that doesn't always mean a large archaeological project).

Most non-planning projects do still require an authorisation process (i.e. they are not under permitted development rights), usually in the past involving a Secretary of State, in the future the Infrastructure Development Commission. English Heritage and the County Mountie would still be consulted.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished
Reply
#14
I have some relatively major infrastructure stuff which was outside the determination of the planning system (by the council). I have to admit, due to its far larger impact I have been far more involved than I normally would. To be honest I think that it will result in a higher quality of work due to the fact I can clearly justify spending far more time on this particular project.
Reply
#15
Quote:quote:Originally posted by historic building

I have some relatively major infrastructure stuff which was outside the determination of the planning system (by the council). I have to admit, due to its far larger impact I have been far more involved than I normally would. To be honest I think that it will result in a higher quality of work due to the fact I can clearly justify spending far more time on this particular project.

Yes. Indeed I have seen some projects where the involvement of the 'curator' (county mounty, development control archaeologist - whatever) has been funded by the developer, via the govt department involved. Probably closer to a development tax than anything else we've seen...... The money was, of course, paid to the council not to the individual staff member...... And before anyone says anything, yes they did still make darn sure we did the job right.
Reply
#16
I wonder how the rate was worked out, presumably there were not vat charges..
Reply
#17
I think I would be interested in what percentage of archaeological funding is raised through the planning system (and perhaps this is the figure that IfA is also really interested in).

If in any one year there were 100 archaeological projects, 7 of which were major infrastructure projects authorised theough Act of Paliament and 93 were domestic dwelling conservatory/porch extensions for which an archaeological planning condition was attached, I would imagine that the 93 PPG projects would combined not equal the total funding obtained through a single infrastructure project. Likewise the number of archaeological posts created through the 93% of PPG projects would probably in total be less than those created by a single infrastructure project.

So I say 'God question Tom'!!

And would also ask, what is the relevance of the IfA data if it is not backed up by a figure of archaeological funding and jobs created through the 93% PPG projects as a comparison against the 'missing' 7%? Surely otherwise it is a quote worthy, but essentially meaningless statistic....

With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Reply
#18
much better put kev
Reply
#19
The question I would like answered is:

Do Barrett Homes spend more on archaeology than English Heritage?
Reply
#20
posted by historic building:
Quote:quoteBig Grino Barrett Homes spend more on archaeology than English Heritage?
I would certainly hope that house builders in general spend more on archaeological fieldwork than EH - after all, house builders tend to destroy archaeology, whereas EH tends to protect it.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How can adequate development planning occur when... GnomeKing 2 5,235 10th July 2017, 12:20 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  short course in planning and heritage ? BAJR 1 2,291 7th November 2014, 06:09 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Should an archaeologist recommend a development in the planning application comments Marc Berger 48 24,406 1st July 2014, 04:45 PM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  Post-graduate funding avaialble for Newcastle. BAJR 1 1,972 7th April 2014, 12:52 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Single Context Planning and GIS.. BAJR 1 2,193 6th April 2014, 09:02 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Developer charged with breach pf conditions after failure to complete archaeology BAJR 22 10,095 22nd August 2013, 12:29 PM
Last Post: Unitof1
  Planning Permission to be relaxed (again) VGC 14 8,340 25th March 2013, 09:49 AM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  Historic Environment Law: Planning, listed buildings, monuments, conservation areas a BAJR 3 3,346 3rd January 2013, 03:21 PM
Last Post: kevin wooldridge
  Refuse planning permission for houses on Wincobank Hill BAJR 22 10,989 5th July 2012, 11:33 PM
Last Post: Unitof1
  Funding Changes in Archaeology BAJR 5 3,236 1st June 2012, 08:13 AM
Last Post: Bodger51

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)