+- 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: Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall w (/showthread.php?tid=1160)
Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall w - Unitof1 - 21st October 2008
From
http://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk/environment/planning/development-control/upload/Model%20Conditions.pdf
there is
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:quote: In order to avoid conditions being added to your decision, please submit ALL necessary information with the initial application--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which has been pointed out might imply
Quote:quote: Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall we?
Can I interpret this as I should encourage the landowner to remove all the archaeology from a site before applying for planning permission?
Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall w - Unitof1 - 21st October 2008
has there been any freds on these charges on bajr or elsewhere?
Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall w - vulpes - 22nd October 2008
No, Unit, but you can interpret it to mean that you should encourage your clients to undertake pre-determination evaluations which may in certain cases remove the need for a condition relating to archaeology.
These charges relate to the discharge of planning conditions not just archaeology conditions. So why you should feel that they are relevant to this website I don't know. They are a small additonal cost to be borne by developers.
The Lindsey guidance correctly points out that if applicants submit full and detailed applications they will reduce the need for conditions, thus avoiding these fees. You should be encouraging your clients to undertake detailed pre-application discussions with the planners and their specialist advisors (archaeologists, conservation officers etc.).
The above is, however, just good common sense which is not new. The charges may be seen to encourage common sense in applicants.
As I've said this is not really of any great relevance to this site as it is unlikely to change archaeological requirements or the approach of a curator to a specific site. Maybe you should try a planning law forum? I f such a thing exists.
Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall w - m300572 - 22nd October 2008
Interesting approach to funding development control work - planning applications already have a fee (although I doubt if it covers the costs of dealing with the complex ones) so this simply extends this - polluter pays principle really, the developer creates costs for the rest of the Council Tax payers so has to pay - it does seem a very low charge though - my last County stopped invoicing for under £50 as it cost more than that to process the invoice!
Any half sensible consultant would be advising clients to carry out pre-determination assessment and evaluation of the site! I know its not always possible but its the recommended approach - what do you generally advise Uo1?
Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall w - Unitof1 - 22nd October 2008
working on it m but I think that this is an incredibly relevant topic. Vulpes seemed to suggest on the other fred that the curators now had some legal responsibility to discharge the condition. I have not as yet found out what?
Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall w - m300572 - 22nd October 2008
Local Planning Authority normally discharges the conditions. Curator at county level will normally have aservice level agreement to provide advice on the archaeological requirements and suitable conditions. I never discharged a condition but I did regularly tell the relevant planning officer that the archaeological works required by planning conditions were completed so the condition could be discharged.
Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall w - Unitof1 - 22nd October 2008
Vulpes seems to be suggesting a more legal involvement
The intimation of these charges is that the developer should pay for work carried out by the planners and presumably that includes the curation of archaeology. What might be interesting is the cross-subsidy (I have been reading the bishbosh below) for applications where the curators donât recommend a condition. As m has intimated (with a hint of naivety)
Quote:quote:Any half sensible consultant would be advising clients to carry out pre-determination assessment and evaluation of the site.Well 99% of my clients come to me after they have talked to curators and have had requested further information-often requiring a brief from the curator. Theses people when they come to me now will presumably already have a charge hanging over them? But this leaves, I donât know exactly as I donât know about the people who decided not to continue with an application, but as a conservative figure about 90% of the applicants who in the opinion of the curators donât require further or any archaeological work and therefore donât come near archaeologists and so archaeologists dont make any money out of themâ¦but the curators in effect doâ¦or subsidies (cross) their advice from those who are required to supply further informationâ¦..should this be a concern, we have a lot of different curatorial/planning set ups around here
Then there are the examples of the two watching brief conditions in the model conditions referenced at the start of this thread. These watching briefs are carried out post application. Now the majority in my area, apart from the archaeologist writing up the spec, with or without a brief, do not follow from any non-intrusive or intrusive evaluation carried out by the developer (with me) apart from the curators unpublished (?) evaluations. Now I have wittered at length on numerous occasions elsewhere about the abuse of watching briefs without evaluation â¦not how I would interpret ppg16.. but in the vein of m3300527s half sensible consultant spiel - could a client get out of the archaeology condition by putting a watching brief spec in with the applicationâ¦Look dear you can save yourself 25 squids by putting this spec in with the applicationâ¦â¦and if I was to get to the 90% that donât come round my way at the moment before they go to the planners.... And what would be the ethics of me saying lets do an evaluation first? Presumably if I suggest that they put a spec in the planners would charge to approve it (or if you are a member of the ifa they dont need to)
So far I have found this 2007 proposal document on Planning Costs and Fees
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningcosts
Intesting attitude from the section 1.2 Background and Previous Studies which refers back to a 2003 study and states that this study may have been inadequate because -
Quote:quote:In particular, the previous surveys were conducted when resources were only just recovering from a particularly low point; costs were therefore artificially depressed.History etc..You have to chuckleâ¦.
Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall w - BAJR Host - 22nd October 2008
Quote:quote:The Lindsey guidance correctly points out that if applicants submit full and detailed applications they will reduce the need for conditions, thus avoiding these fees. You should be encouraging your clients to undertake detailed pre-application discussions with the planners and their specialist advisors (archaeologists, conservation officers etc.).
The above is, however, just good common sense which is not new. The charges may be seen to encourage common sense in applicants.
Vulpes is quite right, and clear... as is m. who correctly states that the curator does not discharge the condition, the planner does, but under advice from the curator. (so in a way the curator has the power of discharge by proxy- sounds nasty)
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall w - Unitof1 - 22nd October 2008
Do I take that to mean that detailed pre-application discussions will not result in a charge? Whos paying for it?
Lets take that to include archaeology too, shall w - m300572 - 22nd October 2008
I don't think there is any naivety in there - its a general statement - if a developer has an archaeological consultant then this consultant should be advising assessment - even if this involves ringing up the HER/DC archaeologist and asking for an opinion. I used to get call like this on a regular basis and usually its possible to give a quich steer ofn the proposal - so job done if there is nothing ther and its a small development, move on to full DBA and possibly then to evaluation if its an area with a lot of potential or a huge development (or indeed both).
Uo1, you don't say if the 99% of your clients have already applied for planning permission. If its a pre-application investigation, or pre-determination, then there is unlikely to be a "condition hanging over them". Conditions will be applied at the time of determination of the application. If the pre-application/determination investigations are negative then there may be no need for archaeological conditions - it is however fairly normal for all applications to have one or two standard conditions applied (things like the work having to commence within 3 or 5 years of the determination).