Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:59:03.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeologists, Architectural Historians and the Planning Process: Whose Agenda?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2011

John Pugh-Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper looks at the issue of archaeological remains as a constraint to development within the modern land-use planning system. It examines the application of current national policy guidance found in Planning Policy Guidance Notes PPG15 and PPG16. It also discusses a number of issues raised by the current practices of professional archaeologists (and architectural historians involved with archaeological issues) within the development control process. It concludes that their increased professional involvement requires, in turn, a greater responsibility by those individuals, as expert witnesses, to ensure not only for the content of their letters and written reports but also for the consequences of their recommendations, which all have increasing significance, legally as well as commercially. Furthermore, if quality and reasonableness are to be maintained in balance then the relevant professional bodies will need to review, more carefully, their professional practices and responsibilities.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , September 2000 , pp. 15 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Estates Gazette 1993. ‘National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Limited (‘The Ikarian Reefer’)’, Estates Gazette, 37, 158Google Scholar
Gill, B (Lord) and Thomson, M G (eds) 1996. Scottish Planning Encyclopedia, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
JPL 1982. ‘Pye (Oxford) Estates Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment’, J Planning and Environment Law, 575Google Scholar
JPL 1999. ‘R v North Yorkshire County Council, ex parte Brown’, J Planning Environment Law, 616Google Scholar
KB 1948. ‘Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation’, Kings Bench Reports, I, 223–33Google Scholar
PLR 1994. ‘R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte North Norfolk D.C’, Planning Law Reports, II, 48Google Scholar
Pugh-Smith, J and Samuels, J 1993. ‘PPG16: Two Years On’, J Planning Environment Law, 204–10Google Scholar
Pugh-Smith, J and Samuels, J 1996a. ‘Archaeology and planning: recent trends and potential conflicts’, J Planning Environment Law, 707–24Google Scholar
Pugh-Smith, J and Samuels, J 1996b. Archaeology in Law, LondonGoogle Scholar