+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Theoretical Developer loophole question (/showthread.php?tid=1074)
Theoretical Developer loophole question - BAJR Host - 11th August 2008
I can't seem to find anything about PDRs that allow developers to dig foundations and lay concrete... where would that sneak in?
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Theoretical Developer loophole question - Anna Stocks - 11th August 2008
Sorry, I was specifically only referring to works which would normally be considered permitted development - e.g. digging of ponds, terracing of gardens, but where the scale of the groundworks could be extensive engouh to mean that they were no longer be classed as permitted development (I was trying to respond to question on first page - "Do you need to apply for planning permission to dig a pond for example")
Theoretical Developer loophole question - Anna Stocks - 11th August 2008
For anyone who hasn't seen this, information on permitted development rights can be found here. I'm always quite surprised at some of the things you can do within planning consent (e.g. put in a swimming pool).
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950418_en_1.htm
It's a bit wordy!
Theoretical Developer loophole question - Steven - 11th August 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
I can't seem to find anything about PDRs that allow developers to dig foundations and lay concrete... where would that sneak in?
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Hi Chaps
It wouldn't, digging foundations is an operation and requires planning permission. PD rights cannot be used if the work materially changes the use of a site.
Digging your garden pond (or terrace) with a JCB is likely to be PD as it's not changing the use (which is a domsetic house and garden). If the JCB was digging a terrace which would then form the basis for an extension which required planning (ie larger, or outside permitted development) then the original work would need planning permission.
There is no "developer loophole".Just because the developer says its PD doesn't make it so!
let me be plain.
A developer cannot dig foundations for a developmemnt which requires planning permission without first getting planning permission. It is not covered by pd.
You normally don't need permission for an archaeological evaluation for example because it is not changing the use of the site and is restricted enginerring work. However, a case I'm dealing with at the moment the Geotechnical investigation will require permission because it entails substantial enginering work over a reasonably long period period of time.
Steven
Theoretical Developer loophole question - BAJR Host - 11th August 2008
Thanks Anna... you and me both... surprised that is!
And yup Steven... thats what I thought... the laying of concrete seems to be part of an act of development and ergo... requires permissions.
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Theoretical Developer loophole question - shovelnomore - 11th August 2008
Interesting that demolition under PD rights is subject to the methods requiring approval by the LPA...
Theoretical Developer loophole question - beamo - 11th August 2008
'If the development had involved any demolition beforehand it would need planning permission I would have thought, especially because an area considered likely to have impotant Roman remains is quite probably going to be within a conservation area.'
'On a larger scale, say you owned a greenfield site and it was known to have some archaeological potential, but not protected, is there anything to stop you just taking a machine to it, digging everything out, and then filling it back in again before applying for planning permission? It might be expensive but it might be cheaper than paying for the archaeology. I've probably said too much...!'
RedEarth - two good points for discussion here.
Areas likely to have important Roman remains may be within a conservation area, but at the moment this would be due to coincidence rather than design. However the draft Heritage Protection Bill indicates that it would become possible for conservation areas to be designated on the basis of special archaeological and artistic interest as well as the exisitng criteria of special historic and architectural interest (see para. 278 of the Explanatory Notes regarding the sections of the Bill not yet drafted).
what about greenfield sites where a potential developer pays for a detailed pre-planning evaluation, then gets scared by the results and asks the landowner or tenant farmer to undertake some deep(er) ploughing in order to lose much of the archaeology. The application could then describe how the archaeological potential indicated by the evaluation is now much diminished.
Beamo
Theoretical Developer loophole question - BAJR Host - 11th August 2008
loopholes... meant to be found and closed... even better if its done before the bill is finalised (or is it too late?)
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Theoretical Developer loophole question - RedEarth - 11th August 2008
Quote:quote:
RedEarth - two good points for discussion here.
Areas likely to have important Roman remains may be within a conservation area, but at the moment this would be due to coincidence rather than design. However the draft Heritage Protection Bill indicates that it would become possible for conservation areas to be designated on the basis of special archaeological and artistic interest as well as the exisitng criteria of special historic and architectural interest (see para. 278 of the Explanatory Notes regarding the sections of the Bill not yet drafted).
what about greenfield sites where a potential developer pays for a detailed pre-planning evaluation, then gets scared by the results and asks the landowner or tenant farmer to undertake some deep(er) ploughing in order to lose much of the archaeology. The application could then describe how the archaeological potential indicated by the evaluation is now much diminished.
Beamo
First point - indeed it would only be a coincidence at the moment, but it would be quite likely at present that in an urban situation any areas of likely Roman potential would be in a conservation area. If this improves with the new bill that can only be good.
Second - deliberately ploughing an area sterile would certainly do the trick! Although there's something a bit dodgy about the expression 'plough me sterile!' Sorry!
I suspect the reason a lot of these things don't happen is simply the hassle of doing it, the cost, and the fact that the county could still ask for further investigation on the basis that supposedly removing all of the archaeology doesn't really mean that there is nothing there. Then they would be forced to pay someone to excavate a load of backfill/ploughsoil, which would make them think twice. Not much good for the archaeology, but in the long term perhaps effective. And besides, I have known of sites where work was supposed to have happened and never did because they forgot to get anyone to do it or whatever. It is also likely that any archaeologists doing pariticularly sub-standard work would be stoppable, but probably only once they had trashed a couple of sites! Either way, some archaeology would be lost but for the greater good - or is it wrong to say that?
Theoretical Developer loophole question - Unitof1 - 11th August 2008
Watch yah. I agree with the unlikelihood of the situation from what Steven says from the nanny state point of view and redearth yes it all pales into insignificance when ploughing/drainage is brought into the frame
But
I would be concerned as a self employed archaeologist trying to make money from archaeology with undertaking hostys dude job description of the clients contract
Quote:quote:watch whats happening and record anything
I quite like the ifa, not often used, definition of a watching brief
Quote:quote: to provide an opportunity, if needed, for the watching archaeologist to signal to all interested parties, before the destruction of the material in question, that an archaeological find has been made for which the resources allocated to the watching brief itself are not sufficient to support treatment to a satisfactory and proper standard
It seems to me that an archaeologist could take on the contract as a watching brief without reference to the curators, but with reference to the landowners and hold the right to bring the watching to a holt at the point of significance findings when it starts looking like the off site specialists are going to make more money than you are. Then ask for more dosh to proceed, presumably by excavation. If the landowner did not like your offer you final invoice(include your opportunity costs) walk away and produce a report to the point of potential significance. Any planning infringement is presumably between the authorities and the landowner.
I wonder hosty if you agree that the ifa watching brief definition is a good one. Personally I think the bigger archaeological firms don?t like it as they try to hide their profit methods from their field staff and take the emphasis off the field archaeologist to understand the financial significance of the finds by overcharging. I bet that there are a lot of people out there who are doing watching briefs and don?t know what the charges are, the costs of picking up all the plastic or excavating significant finds within watching brief costs where better profits could have been made by pushing to excavation (I have put my hardhat on).
In my area the curators have totally expunged the watching brief term from all of their briefs. I have yet to fathom why. It appears to be a very important algao thing but I suspect big boy tactics. I have come up with a new game where I put watching brief in my spec and the curators make me take it out again. They seem to want my clients to undertake Programs of archaeological work or written schemes, which seem to be a mixture/mess of everything and from a very dribbly bit of ppg.
Has anybody been asked to get rid of the topsoil, apparently you can get ?40 a tonne. I think that it has got quite interesting sideline/ethic possibilities during the credit crunch.