Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gryff Rys Jones and localism.
#1
In The Times of 13th August 2011 Gryff Rys Jones, in relation to the proposed draft planning rules and in the context of the ?Localism Bill?

?Each area, each town, each community (they mean the council) must draw up a plan detailing where development will happen.

It is the authentic voice of the bully. We are going to hit you, it says. We will have lots more development. You decide where. Do you want us to desecrate your parks, your terraces, your high street, your suburbs or your green belt? If you can?t make up your mind, we will go ahead anyway without consulting you at all.

With a presumption in favour of development the Government is opening the way for anybody to trash the country. Any lawyer could drive a bulldozer through the flimsy codicils put up to defend ?quality? in the draft.
None of us can afford to ??. ignore this outbreak of vandalism.?


Sounds like us as well!
Reply
#2
Hmm.........sounds like doom-saying to me.....and beefed up a bit for the press.

It could be like that.........in fact in some cases the existing legislation results in the same.

But it equally may not be the case. As it still depends on Local Planning authorities (as I understand it).

The words 'presumption in favour of development' are just that.........scary words........ as I understand it it is still just a guide, and the decisions still rests with Local Planning authorities? Or am I missing something?
Reply
#3
Jack Wrote:I understand it it is still just a guide, and the decisions still rests with Local Planning authorities? Or am I missing something?

Possibly the latter. For 'Local Planning Authority' read 'planning committees made up of the likes of Councillor Melton', who believe that the presumption in favour of development trumps all other arguments. They are not obliged to take the advice of any of their specialists, be they archaeologists or planners so expect a lot more tat that no-one can afford to buy, coming soon to a prime development plot near you.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
Reply
#4
Ah but it states that the local planning committees must adhere to the local authority's plan, and they still must follow the general guidelines.
Reply
#5
That's true but they are still just 'guidelines'. I'm not sure how resistant they will be to pressure to presume in favour of development if they feel they can argue that the need for growth outweighs the need to conserve heritage (or anything else inconvenient).
D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
Reply
#6
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
Reply
#7
As a slight aside, does anyone know whether, if a wall has traditionally (last 80 or 90 years) been used as a backdrop for group photographs, this would be considered under PPS5 to enhance its value as a 'heritage asset' - bit wierd but one worth considering in DBAs when straw clutching? :face-thinks:

[as it happens the wall in question's late 17th century and listed anyway]
Reply
#8
...Or been in a film? Certain car parks spring to mind
Reply
#9
Jack Wrote:...Or been in a film? Certain car parks spring to mind


If anyone offers to sell you a brick, be very, very suspicious! :0

Did the American remake have a scene in an equally iconic 1960s parking structure? Cool
Reply
#10
Jack Wrote:Ah but it states that the local planning committees must adhere to the local authority's plan, and they still must follow the general guidelines.

And for me herein lies the problem, NPPF assumes that the LPAs should set out a strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment in their local plans, but these Local Plans were written on the basis that there was a national planning policy statement (PPS 5 for heritage). The NPPF assumes that the detail of heritage issues will be considered in the local plan, but the local plan was written on the basis that such detail was addressed at a national level - what I fear we are looking at is a policy vacuum.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Chas Jones rejects claims of Persimmon over site of Battle of Fulford at Germany Beck BAJR 14 6,001 5th June 2012, 10:46 AM
Last Post: RedEarth
  Localism Bill ? Committee (9th Day) (19 Jul 2011) BAJR 1 1,274 22nd July 2011, 08:29 AM
Last Post: BAJR
  Decentralisation and Localism Bill Madweasels 7 4,098 13th December 2010, 05:56 PM
Last Post: gwyl
  Real archaeology vs. Indiana Jones Paul Belford 2 1,588 24th July 2009, 09:39 AM
Last Post: oldgirl
  Indiana Jones - his theoretical leanings... Gilraen 9 3,788 6th February 2009, 12:29 AM
Last Post: Ken Denham
  Real Indiana Jones (though she would rather not! BAJR Host 9 5,890 24th May 2008, 01:59 PM
Last Post: Dirty Dave Lincoln
  Indiana Jones or the Mummy 3 ? BAJR Host 10 6,523 23rd May 2008, 01:32 PM
Last Post: angi
  Lego Indiana Jones Game BAJR Host 3 2,497 23rd March 2008, 12:51 PM
Last Post: angi

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)