+- 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: CIfA Client guide published (/showthread.php?tid=5672)
CIfA Client guide published - Marc Berger - 29th June 2015
Hello hosty welcome. Heres a guide that appears to have been written for "planners". It has not attempted an isbn number and there does not appear to be any dates of creation or copyright statements, authors. I presume that it has been written by planners for planners. As a guide it presumably only applicable to south of the boarders and possibly just to hants.
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/archaeology_and_planning_guidance_for_planners.pdf
Whats nice is that it uses archaeology instead of heritage in the title and that on the first page its says
Quote:1. Pre Application and Registration of applications:yes references para128 of the NPPF
It is important that planning applications are submitted with sufficient information to enable the planning authority to make a well informed determination without undue delay (para128).
but it very quickly slips into
Quote:1.2.1.but gives no reference as to where in NPPF the concept of a Heritage Statement being presented with the application that addresses archaeology can be found. For instance para 128 addresses archaeology with a "an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.
All major developments3 should be accompanied by a Heritage Statement that addresses archaeology.
The quide then tries to sort this potential mess out of inventing the device of a heritage statement and not following NPPF para128s "an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation".
by
Quote:1.2.4.I don't know if this coded talk between the planners and the authority to say look we have found a away to make a mess of the applicants application and it does begger the question as to whats the point of a heritage statement but it follows:
The County Archaeologist will review the Heritage Statement and advise the planning authority whether it should satisfy the planning authority. Whilst in many cases the County Archaeologists will review the Heritage Statement as attached to a planning application that has been registered, the applicant or the planning officer may in other cases wish to seek some preliminary reassurance as to the suitability of an Heritage Statement prior to the application being registered. This will reduce the chance that archaeological issues will cause delay to the progress of the application.
Quote:1.2.5.. I am not sure if that's the same as asking the applicant to withdraw their application or lets do any assessment of the application after the decision for the development has been made.
If the mitigation strategy that has been set out is not satisfactory the County Archaeologist will be happy to offer advice, to the applicant or the planning authority, as to how the weaknesses should be addressed. The County Archaeologist will also be happy to endorse a mitigation strategy to the planning authority if it meets the archaeological concerns.
the guide then announces
Quote:1.3.At last a mension of a desk based assesment, "the Planning Authority may not be satisfied that desk-based assessment is sufficient " It does not say if the desk based is different to the heritage statement but I presume that if a heritage statement is sufficient for the application "It is important that planning applications are submitted with sufficient information to enable the planning authority to make a well informed determination without undue delay (para128)" then it would have been a desk based and also an evaluation.
Pre-determination Evaluation
Occasionally, and in accordance with the NPPF(para 128), the Planning Authority may not be satisfied that desk-based assessment is sufficient to enable an informed assessment of impact. In these instances the County Archaeologist may advise that an archaeological field evaluation be undertaken to inform the planning authority prior to determination of the application.
1.3.1.
A pre-determination evaluation is usually necessary where the outcome of the evaluation has the potential to alter the determination of the application (e.g. may discover something that could require preservation, or something whose excavation is so onerous as to be an unreasonable burden to secure through a condition).
1.3.2.
A pre-determination evaluation is strongly advised for very large developments where given the scale of the development the potential for previously unidentified archaeological remains of this nature to be discovered is greater. It is also strongly advised for larger developments so that any resulting mitigative investigations can be incorporated into the development programme. Early evaluation also facilitates the incorporation of historic environment features into design and enables the positive aspects of the historic environment to be presented with the planning application.
Whats most concerning from my point of view is the statement
"1.3.1.
A pre-determination evaluation is usually necessary where the outcome of the evaluation has the potential to alter the determination of the application (e.g. may discover something that could require preservation, or something whose excavation is so onerous as to be an unreasonable burden to secure through a condition)." This appears to say that an evaluation should only occur if it is likely that something that could be designated, "require preservation", or something whose excavation is so onerous as to be an unreasonable burden to secure through a condition. I presume that condition is for post decision excavation and will not be applied because its unreasonable?. Now in ppg16 evaluation was seen as the inexpensive field method to find out whats there and attempt to give a cost for excavation or suggest the only other mitigation a "watching brief" something which is designed for when development start which I would suggest is when the application is granted and I think that that is a very important point for a field archaeologist or a client to understand.
but these are all nothing to what I think is, and I apologise in advance for my choice of words, a corruption of NPPF and you will note that it does not reference NPPF
Quote:1.4.
Archaeological management plans
In situations where the planning authority do not wish to pursue pre-determination evaluation but where there is a high likelihood of previously unidentified or complex archaeology the planning authority may suggest that the applicant produces an âarchaeological management planâ to accompany the application.
1.4.1.
The archaeological management plan should include an assessment of the potential for archaeological findings and make clear provision for archaeological evaluation and the accommodation of the findings and implied archaeological mitigation within the work programme and, if necessary, design. The management plan should also address the strategy for public engagement with the results of archaeological investigation.
1.4.2.
If the archaeological management plan that has been set out is not satisfactory the County Archaeologist will be happy to offer advice, to the applicant or the planning authority, as to how the weaknesses should be addressed. The County Archaeologist will also be happy to endorse an archaeological management plan to the planning authority if it meets the archaeological concerns.
The whole point of NPPF is that archaeology should be taken into consideration in the decision para 128 (and 129). No where in NPPF is there mention of "Archaeological management plans" let alone the situation where somehow we have a rogue authority who does not wish to pursue a pre-determination evaluation (let alone a desk based study) and lets not forget this is where in hants opinion there might be potentially very expensive excavation or designatable heritage involved. Not a single reference to NPPF. but it now gets better because the hants document is one of the few that I have come across which reference paragraph 129 which state also state this concept of the authority having to take archaeology into consideration for the decision and have to have the information to make that decision.
Quote:2.
Consultation
2.1.
The planning authority may consult the County Archaeologist on any planning application which might, in their opinion, have an archaeological issue (para129). However it is recommended that the County Archaeologist is consulted (para128):
on all major applications, and
on other applications according to the criteria set out with the ALERT map.
2.2.
If in doubt a preliminary enquiry to the County Archaeologist is always welcome. It is worth noting that where an archaeological issues is raised late in the day, sometimes by a third party, it can prove hard to resolve within shortened timescales or might cause delay.
2.3.
Where an overriding archaeological concern is raised a representation to that effect will be put to the planning authority. However, it is more usual that the impacts of development can be mitigated
2.4.
Archaeological mitigation usually takes two forms: preservation in situ (i.e. no dig) by working with layout or foundation design, or preservation by record (i.e. digging) through archaeological recording ahead of or during development.
2.5.
It would be usual for recording to be secured by a condition. A standard condition would normally refer to the implementation of a written scheme of investigation (WSI) and it would be within that scheme that the details and complexities of the mitigation solution would be set out.
Now this is a tricky one because it appears that the authority has to be all archaeological and follow para 129:
Quote:129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular
significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal
(including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking
account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should
take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal
on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage assetâs
conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
but their advisors are hanging out in para 128
Quote:128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an
applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected,
including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be
proportionate to the assetsâ importance and no more than is sufficient to
understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a
minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been
consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where
necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has
the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local
planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate
desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.
no cant see any planners in para 128 but then I am biased. I could go on but its nice to have some suspenders in life.
Anybody know if this document is just a draft? Its very inventive. It does seem to be how most of the counties are operating in the areas that I have worked in, but I wonder if there are any who follow the NPPF more purely" . You would have thought that it would make life more clearer and just be creating loads of paper shuffling and delays.
CIfA Client guide published - RitualCoconut - 29th June 2015
What the..........
Somebody hold me B)
CIfA Client guide published - GnomeKing - 29th June 2015
You might be on to something there Marc - although i will (as always) have to re-read....NPPF was introduced as part of government measures advertised to specifically reduce red-tape...hmmm.
these seem to be the key points to verify (edited) ;
"In ppg16, evaluation was seen as the inexpensive field method to find out whats there, and as basis to give a cost for excavation. Or potentially to suggest the only other mitigation; ie a "watching brief" - something which is designed for when development starts, and which I would suggest is when the application is granted. I think that that is a very important point for a field archaeologist, or a client, to understand."
"The whole point of NPPF is that archaeology should be taken into consideration in the decision; para 128 (and 129). No where in NPPF is there mention of "Archaeological management plans". Potentially we could have a rogue authority who does not wish to pursue a pre-determination evaluation (let alone a desk based study) where there might be potentially very expensive excavation or heritage involved." (?)
CIfA Client guide published - tmsarch - 30th June 2015
Marc
I am sure that you will dislike and disagree with everything Iâm about to write, and given it is so late Iâm not sure why Iâm bothering, but I donât know why you consider that a Heritage Statement is an invented device that does not follow the NPPF.
Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states:
Quote:128 In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance* of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.
A Heritage Statement is precisely that - a statement on heritage (not limited to archaeology); it is where the applicant describes the significance of any heritage assets affected [by their application], including any contribution made by their setting. Such a statement might be a stand-alone document or it might simply be a paragraph/short section within a wider Design & Access or Planning Statement.
You could call it a Description of the Significance of any Heritage Assets Affected by the Development Statement, but Heritage Statement seems somehow simplerâ¦
Within the Heritage Statement the applicant might justify why the works are proposed, how they have responded to the siteâs heritage interest and identify any public benefits arising from the scheme. The statement could also explain how any harm to significance has been reduced or avoided, taking into account the âtestsâ set out in paragraphs 133 & 134. These arenât things that would normally fall within a desk-based assessment, howeverâ¦
Additional specialist assessment, for example of archaeological interest through âdesk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluationâ could also be required in order to inform a planning decision. Such desk-based assessment would support and feed into the Heritage Statement, but the two are not the same.
Desk-based assessment and field evaluation are âmethods to find out whatâs thereâ. The Heritage Statement describes what is significant about what is there and how the development has responded to that significance.
* Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage assetâs physical presence, but also from its setting.
CIfA Client guide published - Marc Berger - 30th June 2015
Tsmarsh its good that your bothered, I don't dislike but yes I disagree, not with your definitions but with the blurring of the boundary between archaeology and by that I mean field archaeology and "heritage". So for instance should I treat "heritage statement" under the codes and standards for "desk based assessment" if we want to play doing archaeology to ifa standards as I don't think there is one for heritage statement. For me a desk based assessment can only be done by a field archaeologist sitting down at a desk. Once you have got the taste for working under your own desk based assessment I have struggled to work under anybody else's. As pointed out in the current "what makes a good new digger" exampled by ritualcoconut a lot of people come into archaeology working under somebody else's desk based assessment and wsi and are encouraged as such because they make good employees.
I haven't a clue whats required for a heritage statement and don't intended to ever have. This appears to be a big problem. As you are aware I also have experience of where the mounties have taken great umbrage to my desk based assessment being called a heritage statement. I was of the conceit that me being a field archaeologist sitting down at a desk would be all that would be required. I certainly got out of it all that I required to increase my competence to undertake an evaluation.
As I tried to point out with the hants doc there quite a lot of horse before cart in this heritage statement concept so as you say
Quote:Desk-based assessment and field evaluation are “methods to find out what’s there”. The Heritage Statement describes what is significant about what is there and how the development has responded to that significance.
without an evaluation (field) of the archaeology good luck with your statement and similarly for
Quote:Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.
The point of a field evaluation is to work out the costs of excavation which is a very real "value"
what I think hostys looking for is the view from field archaeologists for their clients or possibly even a useful view from clients of field archaeologists. One of the problems that I have is a lot of my clients have already been to the mounties and presume that I am a heritage specialist and what they bring is briefs requiring post determination "assessment" for want of a better phrase. I notice that you have not picked at the 128 and 129 Indetermining/proposal aspect of this environment and what to do if these assessments are left until after the decision is taken.
Please be bothered. Not many are mostly because they have not given it a go.
CIfA Client guide published - Marc Berger - 30th June 2015
And we have only got a few lines into hostys guide
Quote:The first stop should be the Archaeological Curator or Planning Archaeologist in your area: http://www.bajr.org/WhoseWho/Curator.aspI know hostys got a who's who but if your going to have it Have it at the end or better still in a different guide(on a different web site) if it was me maybe give them the wrong addresses
Quote:The first stop should be your local archaeologist.....
CIfA Client guide published - P Prentice - 30th June 2015
once its 'local chartered archaeologist' i will agree
CIfA Client guide published - Marc Berger - 30th June 2015
That is but what chartists with the county "handbooks" are trying to cover but they convieniently ignor the national codes that pertain to fieldwork.
I don't need your agreement You just need ownership. Which if you are in Scotland belongs to her majestic. So you have to fall back onto other rights...
I feel that any guide about field archaeology and planning should start with pointing out that all the swapsies belong to the landowner. None of the guides, hants, cif or hostys seem to care about this. I think that it's a bloody good selling point, good advertising, gets the punters concentrating on the loot. Obviously the next step is to get them to sign the loot over to the archive.
CIfA Client guide published - P Prentice - 30th June 2015
well it should state that it is categorically better to address the process that most planning authorities use on a daily basis rather than one cervantes berger would like to
CIfA Client guide published - Marc Berger - 1st July 2015
True but
Nppf has tried to push assessment pre decision but it's an arena in which the Mounties don't have authority through conditions particularly evaluation. They have made up all this heritage mumbojumbo which is easily trumped with a simple field evaluation.
Brown field site negative evaluation
Quote:Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.
Suddenly the architectual, artistic, or historic presence and setting is pretty much lost in its box