Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Oh Dear what can the matter be
#11
Can NPPF para 141 be interpreted to mean that local means within the local planning authority area?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Reply
#12
Marc Berger Wrote:Can NPPF para 141 be interpreted to mean that local means within the local planning authority area?
show me a curator who knows anything else
welcome back slothrop
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Reply
#13
Thank you. I don't expect it to be for long. The force is weak.

What's a curator ? I would like it to be a finds specialist who maintained a type series......not an educator who thought the lowest common denominator needed some time series.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Reply
#14
I think it depends on whether you're in a unitary or two-tier authority. The area covered by a Local Planning Authority may not have an appropriate museum or archive office to enable deposition, especially if that sort of thing is dealt with at a county rather than a district level. In such a case, you would need to deposit your archive somewhere outside the LPA area. I don't think the NPPF can safely be interpreted to mean "deposition must occur within the boundary of a LPA".

I think the safest course is to take "local" to mean whatever is stipulated in the planning condition, or in any local guidance. See what your LPA think.
Reply
#15
To be safe my local Planning authority have an unwritten arrangement with the County that was "arranged" in 1990 for archaeological services. That it was not recorded, and even its title is obscure and in accounts is referred to as N/A, and has not been reviewed since 1990, means that both county and district don't know what to think. I would suggest that to be safe the L in LPA should mean local and LPAs should be resistant to contradictions.

Does anybody know what have been the outcomes of the removal of archaeological advice for LPAs in West Sussex? It would be nice to imagine that the Local Government Ombudsman has insisted that each LPA retained and provided a local HER and employed local archaeological advice based in a local Archaeological Museum. Presumably to get that to happen would need somebody to go through a complaints procedure.

As you came through the door you would immediately be transfixed by my three fluted jug handle typology series.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Reply
#16
Marc Berger Wrote:...It would be nice to imagine that the Local Government Ombudsman has insisted that each LPA retained and provided a local HER and employed local archaeological advice based in a local Archaeological Museum.

As you came through the door you would immediately be transfixed by my three fluted jug handle typology series.

who are you?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Reply
#17
A local digger with copyrights thankfully principled on English landowners ownership rights
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Reply
#18
Quote:We've got the weird setup 'round here where in one of the counties, most of the District Councils don't use the services of the County Archaeology Service, which makes the whole process a bit strange, there are jobs where you're effectively consultant, contractor and curator all in one since you're the only archaeologist involved in the entire process, and everyone else pretty much has to go along with what you say...has been going on for years

Sounds like the future, which districts? Shouldn't you be doing all the archaeology before the application is put in?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Reply
#19
Marc Berger Wrote:Shouldn't you be doing all the archaeology before the application is put in?

Ahahahaha...ooh, spilt my coffee Sad

No developer's going to spends 100ks (or millions) on unwanted archaeology unless they've got an assurance they're going to be allowed to build something afterwards!
Reply
#20
Quote:No developer's going to spends 100ks (or millions) on unwanted archaeology unless they've got an assurance they're going to be allowed to build something afterwards!

And no planning authority should allow an excavation for the purposes of mitigation unless the development is almost certainly going to go ahead;

NPPF 136 - "Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred."

So while an evaluation purely for the purpose of informing a planning decision or condition (that is to say a WSI for mitigation) is acceptable under national policy (para 128), undertaking a full excavation prior to determination of the application most certainly is not.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A worrying matter Jack 12 4,450 16th April 2015, 02:20 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  CBA - Making Archaeology Matter and PPS5 BAJR 1 680 15th November 2010, 04:57 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Does size matter? mercenary 12 2,482 15th February 2007, 02:10 PM
Last Post: Sith

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)