Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
31st October 2008, 07:39 PM
Beamo... you have it in one... the client risks more than a hold-up... the press love a good bash an evil heritage trashing developer story... how much better a "heritage hero" developer story... whatever happens... the council must be told the result of thier automatic database condition... not wise, when it needs a human to interpret.!
Better safe than sorry... I have often advised a developer to be safe.. and half the time there was nothing... fine.. developer happy.. other times there has been a range from Neolithic House! to a Roman fortlet..... phew... close call.. developer avoids problems and hostility by showing that they have acted responsibly.. does not always work.. (I can think of a few where the planner put on conditions without consulting... I was reminded I did not have to be!)
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
3rd November 2008, 10:55 AM
This is possibly not the place to mention that there was a rumour that the access condition was to become the recommended condition for the new PPS15â¦
From discussions with a lawyer about the access condition last time a developer told me they would leave their gates open and await the wandering band of archaeologists to observe the construction, the lawyer pointed out to me that the condition has to be read in relation to PPG16. The other point is that if no interested party turned up to witness the groundworks then the developer has an unauthorised building as they have been unable to build within the conditions of their consent.
I will have a dig and see if I can find the email..
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
3rd November 2008, 11:09 AM
so quite dangerous for the developer... if no wandering band of archaeologists happen to pass and pop in.??
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
3rd November 2008, 01:04 PM
OK found the email from the lawyers. The decision notice containing the conditions will make reference to the policies under which the decision was made. So the archaeological condition will reference the archaeological policies, these are based upon PPG16 that clearly places the onus onto the developer to pay for archaeological work.
I would paste the full email here, but it was really quite patronising.
There are cases where the condition is absurd and cannot be enforced, for example building recording conditions on greenfield developments. This is the problem with databases of conditions held by local councils that the archaeologist may not be able to access and change. Some planning officers may well keep their own lists of conditions that they paste into their decision notices. Ideally the only, and standard condition, should be the PPG16 condition.
I really do not mean to be rude about anyone who has made comments earlier, but there is obviously a considerable, potential liability issue when archaeologists are advising on the meaning of conditions without taking legal advice or advice from a qualified planner.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
3rd November 2008, 02:16 PM
HB - your closing point is well-made and should be closely observed by all of us.
I am fortunate in working within a consultancy that includes plenty of planners so I can nip down the corridor and get some professional planning advice quite easily - if this is not available then some PI insurance may be vital.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
4th November 2008, 04:33 PM
Hbuilding
Quote:quote: but there is obviously a considerable, potential liability issue when archaeologists are advising on the meaning of conditions without taking legal advice or advice from a qualified planner
with the new discharge charges arent the archaeologists supposed to sort out all potential conditions before the need for them requires your attention.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
4th November 2008, 05:32 PM
I cannot understand how an administrative charge has anything to do with this.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
4th November 2008, 08:15 PM
I have to say I think the lawyer is incorrect. It all depends upon the exact wording of the condition and the informative. Policies being quoted - which I have never seen - do not make much difference.
Access conditions are a pain and are relatively common.
I would argue that in the context of PPg 16 an access condition is unneccessary - the development would not be refused permission if this did not take place.
There is no obligation to employ an archaeologist to comply with an access condition. The informative with the condition usually specifies that the condition will allow somebody from the LPA to visit the site. Sometimes the LPA is specified in the condition.
As to wandering bands of archaeologists - firstly they would have to prove they actually archaeologists before access was granted to them. Secondly there is no obligation for a developer to stop work.
There is also the point that a planning condition is unreasonable if you are dependent on a thiord party.
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
5th November 2008, 01:33 PM
HB (go on, be rude) Apart from there did not used to be administration charges and now there are so things have changed and could the charge not be used to pay for the nominated archaeologist to undertake the work but I just know I will get an irrelevant warning in terms of access conditions so its probably better to follow Drps lead on unreasonable third party dependence to which could be added reasonable monitoring and enforcement.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicatio...ircularuse
I have to admit that why isnât it seen that having to have an archaeologists for anything is unreasonable on the grounds that you cant do it your self.
I presume from Beamos preamble that the matter of this thread is still pre application with this condition but I wonder how the access condition would be worded and how would it be discharged
