+- 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 - 10th August 2008
Just to test your grey cell muscles.. here is a theoretical situation: What would you do? - this would be a PPG16 question
Developer has site, the area is within an area identified on Local Plan as containing potential for Roman urban deposits.
Developer decides to prepare site - just boxing off some 'basements' (roughly the same size as proposed development). For this he saysthat no planning permission is required, and so, out of goodness of heart 'invites' a local archaeology firm to watch whats happening and record anything.
The archaeologist sent to the site is presented with deep strat Roman and medieval - lets throw in some wooden timbers as well - and ditches, floor surfaces etc... Archaeologist feels there is too much archaeology to deal with in a watching brief.. Developer says... I am paying you to watch and record... not stop anything... Development Control Archaeologist is called... sorry, there is nothing I can do, as its not in planning. Company can do nothing, as they are there only at invite of developer.
What do you do next? Is it a loophole? or is it a clear case of developer just breaking planning law by not getting permissions? Should the planning archaeologist call in enforcement ? Can they? Is the site too dangerous for a watching brief? No shoring? deep sections? I have my own solution.. but want to hear from those that may indeed know better. Think of it like a Monday Puzzler :face-thinks:
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Theoretical Developer loophole question - Sparky - 10th August 2008
Hello
Sounds familiar.
If the area was identified on the Local Plan as having the potential for Roman deposits then why was the developer allowed to break the ground? That should be considered in the planning consent and works should stop until the planners have been informed of the situation and any likely breach of their forthcoming planning conditions.
I would probably also give the regional statutory archaeologist a call (EH / HS / Cadw / EHS) to see how their spines are holding up.
Naturally, the archaeology should be discussed in the context of its local, regional and national significance and decisions should based on that merit.
Theoretical Developer loophole question - BAJR Host - 10th August 2008
But what if a developer has not applied for planning yet? Is there any works not covered by Planning? Permitted?
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Theoretical Developer loophole question - kevin wooldridge - 10th August 2008
Surely PPG16 empahasises that the majority of archaeological research/field evaluation will be carried out at a pre-application stage, with the results of the evaluation/DBA accompanying the planning application.
If I were to apportion 'blame' in the scenario as you paint it, it would be largely with the development control archaeologist who is obviously unaware of the pre-application process and the potential for refusing an application when made, if the developer does not accompany it with appropriate documentation i.e in this instance a comprehensive record of archaeological deposits destroyed during the 'boxing' of the basements.
There must also be some blame attached to the 'local archaeological firm'. I think I would be unhappy carrying out a watching brief for such a firm, without the developer having defined in advance an intervention strategy, if the so-called watching brief uncovered unexpected evidence (which in such an ill-defined scenario would appear to be [u]any </u> evidence). Secondly 'local firm' aint gonna be doing a lot to endear themselves to the 'local curator' if they pursue their work with such a laissez-faire attitude and may find that 'a favour' for this cowboy could end costing them local work in the future.
I would also be interested to know if said developer has an archaeological consultant providing advice....
Theoretical Developer loophole question - BAJR Host - 10th August 2008
It is an interesting situation, where IF there is no planning application required to carry out dertain works on a site - a company can find itself carrying out works for a client that are outwith 'control' from the planning arch.. as they would be unaware of any works (via the planning list) Therefore a company could find itself in such a position. If they refuse - then the developer 'could' carry out works without archaeologists present,... BUT, by inviting archaeologists in, they can say ' look.. how responsible am I... I did not have to bring in archaeologists.. but I did!" I would agree that when it came to planning... as a development curator, I would go... wtf! but by then it would be too late... site sterilised..
If the company had not gone in... then everything gone with no record... ?
The big question is.... can a developer 'box out' or lay concrete without planning being informed anyway? and would planning even bother informing the DC arch? Would a DC arch be able to place conditions on something that needed no conditions?
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Theoretical Developer loophole question - Anna Stocks - 10th August 2008
I would consider that the best people to contact in this instance would be the enforcement office of the Local PLanning Authority. I am always surprised at the extent of the works which can be carried out as 'permitted works', however, it may be that the scale of works may count as engineering - and may therefore require planning consent, or there is other legislation which would enable the stopping of the damaging works. The planning office/enforcement department should be able to confirm legality of the works, and whether anything can be done to prevent the archaeological damage. Although I would expect the Planning Archaeologist to contact the enforcement office in the first instance, there is nothing to stop a member of public to raise this issue with them.
And before anyone starts apportioning 'blame' it may well be that the planning archaeologist has already contacted the planning department, and had confirmation that the developers are acting within their right. Please remember that most planning archaeologists can only provide advice to the Local Planning Authority (LPA), and that the power/responsibility to halt works (if legally possible), lies with the LPA.
Theoretical Developer loophole question - BAJR Host - 10th August 2008
Please remember that most planning archaeologists can only provide advise to the Local Planning Authority (LPA), and that the power/responsibility to halt works (if legally possible), lies with the LPA.
seconded.
I don't think blame is a good thing... and of course... this is purely hypothetical ...
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Theoretical Developer loophole question - Sparky - 10th August 2008
David,
What I was inferring is that the ground breaking works and any footings should be considered under the planning consent because there is archaeological potential.
If the developers progressed with the ground works without planning permission then it should be equally seen as if they had actually constructed the building. I find it puzzling that they started without consent when archaeology could have been a condition. Ignorance is no excuse and all that.
can a developer 'box out' or lay concrete without planning being informed anyway?
If there is archaeology at the site as indicated by the local plan and the DC archaeologist has been informed by the planners and responded appropriately then the DC arch has done their job, regardless of what the planners state in their conditions.
and would planning even bother informing the DC arch?
I believe there has been a bit of this going on in Wales recently.
Would a DC arch be able to place conditions on something that needed no conditions?
I assumed that it would need conditions prior to ground-breaking, or do you mean that the archaeology is now gone...?
Theoretical Developer loophole question - BAJR Host - 10th August 2008
archaeology gone in this theoretical case
I would find it odd, that any form of sub surface work can take place without some form of planning
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Theoretical Developer loophole question - RedEarth - 10th August 2008
I can't imagine how 'boxing out' foundations could be done without being part of a planning application, and I cn't see many developers going to the expense of doing that when they might not get their permission, or applying retrospectively, for the same reason (it's not like adding some new windows!).
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.
Another, perhaps smaller scale issue, might be people making substantial alterations to gardens within areas of archaeological importance, especially if for some reason there is relatively little overburden. Do you need to apply for planning permission to dig a pond for example (which could basically be as deep as you liked) or alter ground levels, for terracing for example? I remember seeing a lot of soil coming out of a garden on the edge of the area of a Roman fort once and wondering whether they might have affected anything of interest.
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...!