22nd January 2007, 09:50 PM
Unit of 1 said
"no planning permission for any development anywhere should be given without an intrusive trial excavation; Yes- unless its scheduled".
This is a total absurdity. A 5% evaluation can be more destructive than a mitigation strategy. At the oppossite extreme. How about a change of use permission or a certificate of lawful use where no ground disturbance is planned?
The point of an evaluation is to determine if an archaeological planning condition will be imposed, if there will be a required to preserve archaeological remains in situ or if the application will be refused.
If the planning outcome is known then an evaluation is not neccessary.
Dr Peter Wardle
"no planning permission for any development anywhere should be given without an intrusive trial excavation; Yes- unless its scheduled".
This is a total absurdity. A 5% evaluation can be more destructive than a mitigation strategy. At the oppossite extreme. How about a change of use permission or a certificate of lawful use where no ground disturbance is planned?
The point of an evaluation is to determine if an archaeological planning condition will be imposed, if there will be a required to preserve archaeological remains in situ or if the application will be refused.
If the planning outcome is known then an evaluation is not neccessary.
Dr Peter Wardle