19th January 2007, 12:50 PM
1m1d's post has demonstrated some of the 'issues' that are thrown up by PPG16, and why a reformed PPS is now required (roll on thr Heritage White Paper).
Yes - PPG16 does say 'Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer's own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken.'
However, for many local authorities the requirement for evaluation is not that research has demonstrated the potential for important archaeological remains to exist, it is actually that the research (DBA / geofizz / whatever) has not been able to demonstrate that important archaeological remains do not exist within the proosed development area, especially for larger development sites.
I.e. the onus is on the applicant to prove that significant remains are not present or that impacts can be mitigated adequately, rather than on the curator to demonstate that significant remains are present. This is a logical response and in many cases is the only way to ensure real progress towards identifying the presence of remains, but is not in line with PPG16.
Developers with keen legal advisers can use this to their advantage. I recently completed a DBA for a large development in the open countryside that concluded that there were no known significant archaeological remains present. the curator then requested an evcaluation, pointing out quite rightly that there had actuially noit been any development in this area (or even any ploughing as it was all pasture) that would have resulted in the discovery of artefacts or archaeological remains. The developer claimed that this was not in line with PPG16 as the DBA had not identified any potential for the presence of significant remains and therefore evaluation could not be justified. Fortunately PPG16 does allow for further non-intursive research beyond DBA (such as geofizz) and therefore this can be justified. However, if the geofizz is negaitive then it may be harder for the curator to insist on evaluation.
The principal issue is whether or not the applicants have provided sufficient information on the potential presence (and nature, date, extent, etc) of archaeological remains for the plaqnning authorities to make an informed decision on determination and mitigation, but the PPG does not give this adequate emphasis.
I have also been involved in developments where the applicants have tried to resist extensive evaluations on the grounds that PPG16 refers to evaluation as being 'normally a rapid and inexpensive operation'. The get-out word here is 'normally' but this leaves the curator in the position of having to justify why they feel that the proposed development site is abnormal to the extent that it requires expensive and time-consuming evaluation. Again this is a problem within PPG16, not (well, not often) an issue of curators being over-zealous.
Beamo
Yes - PPG16 does say 'Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer's own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken.'
However, for many local authorities the requirement for evaluation is not that research has demonstrated the potential for important archaeological remains to exist, it is actually that the research (DBA / geofizz / whatever) has not been able to demonstrate that important archaeological remains do not exist within the proosed development area, especially for larger development sites.
I.e. the onus is on the applicant to prove that significant remains are not present or that impacts can be mitigated adequately, rather than on the curator to demonstate that significant remains are present. This is a logical response and in many cases is the only way to ensure real progress towards identifying the presence of remains, but is not in line with PPG16.
Developers with keen legal advisers can use this to their advantage. I recently completed a DBA for a large development in the open countryside that concluded that there were no known significant archaeological remains present. the curator then requested an evcaluation, pointing out quite rightly that there had actuially noit been any development in this area (or even any ploughing as it was all pasture) that would have resulted in the discovery of artefacts or archaeological remains. The developer claimed that this was not in line with PPG16 as the DBA had not identified any potential for the presence of significant remains and therefore evaluation could not be justified. Fortunately PPG16 does allow for further non-intursive research beyond DBA (such as geofizz) and therefore this can be justified. However, if the geofizz is negaitive then it may be harder for the curator to insist on evaluation.
The principal issue is whether or not the applicants have provided sufficient information on the potential presence (and nature, date, extent, etc) of archaeological remains for the plaqnning authorities to make an informed decision on determination and mitigation, but the PPG does not give this adequate emphasis.
I have also been involved in developments where the applicants have tried to resist extensive evaluations on the grounds that PPG16 refers to evaluation as being 'normally a rapid and inexpensive operation'. The get-out word here is 'normally' but this leaves the curator in the position of having to justify why they feel that the proposed development site is abnormal to the extent that it requires expensive and time-consuming evaluation. Again this is a problem within PPG16, not (well, not often) an issue of curators being over-zealous.
Beamo