4th September 2006, 10:43 PM
So many of you seem to believe that we have huge powers which are only a pen swipe away. Curators are only ADVISORS it is up to planners to make the decision whether to discharge the condition or enforce it. If evaluations are being undertaken pre-determination we can issue a brief and agree a WSI if this is not followed then there is nothing which can be done as one would assume that the landowner has given their permission for the work. All that can be done in this situation is when a planning application come in for the site is to advise the planner that the evaluation has been inadequate according to the impact. The applicant is free to supply contractors consultants etc who can equally claim that the work is adequate. The planner then has to make a judgment.
Recently I have been dealing with an application which was deferred for an evaluation to be undertaken. The applicant and their contractor clearly had no intention of evaluating the site for any archaeology present and simply ignored the specification once it was apparent that the work could not be completed to the developer's financial timetable and simply chased the answers required by the structural engineers. Despite the obvious inadequacy of the evaluation the contractors were happy to argue the opposite. In this case, I am happy to say, I won. This was due to the planning officer supporting me in this case.
Enforcing against developers is easy with listed building consent, if the planner, and the council support you. It is a criminal offence to breach listed building consent. The standard archaeological condition of no work prior to the agreement of a scheme of archaeological works us agreed is very useful. Any evidence of development work is a clear breach of condition. If anyone buys the building with undischarged LBC conditions then they are liable to be prosecuted for them also; the crime runs with the ownership of the building and at the time of purchase their solicitor would identify this in the search.
Recently I have been dealing with an application which was deferred for an evaluation to be undertaken. The applicant and their contractor clearly had no intention of evaluating the site for any archaeology present and simply ignored the specification once it was apparent that the work could not be completed to the developer's financial timetable and simply chased the answers required by the structural engineers. Despite the obvious inadequacy of the evaluation the contractors were happy to argue the opposite. In this case, I am happy to say, I won. This was due to the planning officer supporting me in this case.
Enforcing against developers is easy with listed building consent, if the planner, and the council support you. It is a criminal offence to breach listed building consent. The standard archaeological condition of no work prior to the agreement of a scheme of archaeological works us agreed is very useful. Any evidence of development work is a clear breach of condition. If anyone buys the building with undischarged LBC conditions then they are liable to be prosecuted for them also; the crime runs with the ownership of the building and at the time of purchase their solicitor would identify this in the search.