1st June 2004, 09:46 PM
Lets get back to basics. A planning condition can only be imposed if without the planning application would other wise be refused. Therefore such a condition should not be applied to a development if there is not clear evidence that archaeological remains are present.
PPG 16 requires archaeological remains to preserved by situ or preserved by record.
An archaeologist on site who is too much of a wimp to stop the development while whatever has been found is excavated should not be there. The system is clear cut in this circumstance - the development stops. If the developer does not then they are in breach of their planning permission etc etc. If found guilty this carries a fine of upto 20k if you plead guilty.
If stuff is present that needs excavating - either it need excavating or it doesn't - all we are discussing is when it will be discovered. In terms of the PPG16 system the extent of the excavation should be the same if stuff is found in a watching brief or not. The cost of the excavation will be the same whenever the remains are found what will be different are the other costs to the developer.
If archaeology has made the development uneconomic it is simply tough on the developer.
In PPG 16 a watching brief is a means of ensuring that the developers do what they are suppossed to and thus prevent damage to important monuments.
I agree watching briefs are nice little earners for archaeologist though - they are always done on a day rate. I always used to enjoy them when I was a proper archaeologist - a nice drive in countryside take a few photographs stop somewhere nice for lunch.
Peter
PPG 16 requires archaeological remains to preserved by situ or preserved by record.
An archaeologist on site who is too much of a wimp to stop the development while whatever has been found is excavated should not be there. The system is clear cut in this circumstance - the development stops. If the developer does not then they are in breach of their planning permission etc etc. If found guilty this carries a fine of upto 20k if you plead guilty.
If stuff is present that needs excavating - either it need excavating or it doesn't - all we are discussing is when it will be discovered. In terms of the PPG16 system the extent of the excavation should be the same if stuff is found in a watching brief or not. The cost of the excavation will be the same whenever the remains are found what will be different are the other costs to the developer.
If archaeology has made the development uneconomic it is simply tough on the developer.
In PPG 16 a watching brief is a means of ensuring that the developers do what they are suppossed to and thus prevent damage to important monuments.
I agree watching briefs are nice little earners for archaeologist though - they are always done on a day rate. I always used to enjoy them when I was a proper archaeologist - a nice drive in countryside take a few photographs stop somewhere nice for lunch.
Peter