4th January 2007, 08:27 PM
I seem to work in a different system.
It is a "local planning authourity" who issue planning permission except those determined on appeal. The LPA decisions are made by elected members but these decisions can be delegated to an officer.
These decisions are legally enforceable in the criminal courts normally in the magistrate court. Fines for breaches of the TCPA carrying a fine of upto 20k - the level of the fine being determined by the financial gain.
The LPA employ officers who are "advisors" in a sense to the LPA to advise on/determine if a planning application conforms to the development plan policy.
If a planning application does conform to the policy and there are not objections then the application will be dealt with by delegated powers for example.
If the officers recommend approval and the elected members refuse the application there is a good chance the decision will be reversed on appeal.
The status of archaeologist who comment on planning applications varies but nevertheless they have "powers". If a planning condition is imposed the LPA can take enforcement action which in turn can be instigated by an archaeological officer or a complaint from a member of the general public.
So thus if there is a reasonable neccesary and practical requirement for archaeological work to be undertaken then there is by definition a mechanism for ensuring that the work conforms to what is required. What more is needed other than the LPA to do their job?
I for one see no reason therefore for a change in the system and I would be against any move to take power from where it belongs - the elected members.
I cannot see how a professional body like the IFA could have a role in the monitoring of a project in its own right. They have no pays of entry or right to go on a piece of land.
Charges for monitoring visits and/or pre-application advice have been around for many years. Charges for using SMRs are universal. I note that somebody applying for planning permission pays a fee (tax) in any event.
Peter Wardle
It is a "local planning authourity" who issue planning permission except those determined on appeal. The LPA decisions are made by elected members but these decisions can be delegated to an officer.
These decisions are legally enforceable in the criminal courts normally in the magistrate court. Fines for breaches of the TCPA carrying a fine of upto 20k - the level of the fine being determined by the financial gain.
The LPA employ officers who are "advisors" in a sense to the LPA to advise on/determine if a planning application conforms to the development plan policy.
If a planning application does conform to the policy and there are not objections then the application will be dealt with by delegated powers for example.
If the officers recommend approval and the elected members refuse the application there is a good chance the decision will be reversed on appeal.
The status of archaeologist who comment on planning applications varies but nevertheless they have "powers". If a planning condition is imposed the LPA can take enforcement action which in turn can be instigated by an archaeological officer or a complaint from a member of the general public.
So thus if there is a reasonable neccesary and practical requirement for archaeological work to be undertaken then there is by definition a mechanism for ensuring that the work conforms to what is required. What more is needed other than the LPA to do their job?
I for one see no reason therefore for a change in the system and I would be against any move to take power from where it belongs - the elected members.
I cannot see how a professional body like the IFA could have a role in the monitoring of a project in its own right. They have no pays of entry or right to go on a piece of land.
Charges for monitoring visits and/or pre-application advice have been around for many years. Charges for using SMRs are universal. I note that somebody applying for planning permission pays a fee (tax) in any event.
Peter Wardle