+- 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 - Paul Belford - 11th August 2008
Oh my god, its back.
Theoretical Developer loophole question - BAJR Host - 11th August 2008
I agre with the IFA definition of watching brief - perhaps I don't agree with watching brief in certain conditions - ie... an urban site... where "duh.." yes you are going to find things! you are in the middle of a historic town... and are digging 4 meter deep foundations - I would say that you may impact on soemthing... a watching brief is pointless in that aspect - UNLESS it is focussed and backed up with enough clauses of what happens next...
even down to what kind of arcaheology will require further work, what work, why etc
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Theoretical Developer loophole question - drpeterwardle - 11th August 2008
As a few points.
What does and does not need permission is a complex subject.
As a rule of thumb anything normally done by a builder will normally require planning permission unless there are permitted development rights (in effect bulk granting of planning permission without forms being submitted).
If this is a hypotectical situation and the developer was just poring concrete into an area already disturbed - what harm was done? How come all this spectacular archaeology was uncovered.
Under the current act conservation areas can be designated or areas included because of their historic and archaeological value.
In the case of the remediation work and archaeology - the answer is simple the development cannot lawfully start because the programme of archaeological work cannot be undertaken.
There is nothing illegal in undertaking works for which planning permission may be required without planning permission being asked for!
Peter
Theoretical Developer loophole question - mercenary - 11th August 2008
I've lost count of the number of sites where something has been dug out without archaeological supervision both before and after the official archaeological mitigation work. It's happened and will inevitably continue to happen once we leave my current site. I could cry. Not to mention the fact that the carefully "preserved" in-situ strat has now been systematically removed footing by footing with only hasty section recording possible now that the excavation phase is over. None of these new footings were present on the original blueprints used for the preservation in-situ negotiations, and I can only assume that the archs were supposed to be long gone before these were added.
I have never yet seen any punitive action from the Local Authority for these kind of breaches. Sigh...
Theoretical Developer loophole question - BAJR Host - 11th August 2008
Seems like we are in a losing battle - time to fight back?
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Theoretical Developer loophole question - mercenary - 11th August 2008
Been doing what I can for years, but generally I just annoy my employers. I think once again we are back to the campaigning for support for local authorities. Unless you have any more radical ideas David?
Theoretical Developer loophole question - BAJR Host - 12th August 2008
I don't think radical .. only coordinated and sensible - and perhaps a bit of public support.
We need to collectively identify - All areas where there are problems - and the practical solution.
ie Permitted Development from Utility Companies - ensure all routes/works are made available to the DC archaeologist -
how to manage: (locate item such as 'duty to cherish heritage' in their mission statement) - get placed on their list of consultees.
etc
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Theoretical Developer loophole question - oldgirl - 12th August 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
I agre with the IFA definition of watching brief - perhaps I don't agree with watching brief in certain conditions - ie... an urban site... where "duh.." yes you are going to find things! you are in the middle of a historic town... and are digging 4 meter deep foundations - I would say that you may impact on soemthing... a watching brief is pointless in that aspect - UNLESS it is focussed and backed up with enough clauses of what happens next...
even down to what kind of arcaheology will require further work, what work, why etc
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
I don't agree that WB in urban contexts is not relevant. As with ALL sites, there is no 'one size fits all', it's a 'programme' of works because you may end up with ALL elements and (to use that phrase....) it's an iterative process, so the results of one set of works feed into and inform the next.
Theoretical Developer loophole question - Sith - 12th August 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
There is nothing illegal in undertaking works for which planning permission may be required without planning permission being asked for!
Sloblock! Surely Ignorantia juris non excusat. Although Section 64 of the T&CP Act only suggests that a developer may apply to the local planning authority to determine if Planning Permission is required, I would have thought it was a sensible idea. Even if only to avoid the embarrasment of news coverage like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/7391393.stm
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
Your lack of archaeological imagination disappoints me Curator
Theoretical Developer loophole question - oldgirl - 12th August 2008
I particularly liked this bit
"Mr Fidler had claimed he only started building the structure when the council did not answer his planning application to turn a cowshed into a house. "
It was the 'didn't answer' I liked...... And the fact that he hid it behind the hay bales so that no-one would notice.....