21st May 2010, 01:42 PM
'The nasty surprises come when, having built the house within the carefully archaeologically excavated footings, the new owner then digs out all the remaining 'archaeology in situ' to plant the garden full of trees, shrubs, dead pets etc, for which he requires no planning permission at all!'
On a similar theme I was once involved in a housing development that was wholly within a Scheduled Monument. Some limited archaeological excavation had been undertaken and the previous landowner had somehow managed to get SMC and planning permission for residential development without any requirement for further archaeological work and had flogged the land to another developer (10 years later) on that basis. However EH pointed out that although the SMC allowed the construction of the housing estate, there was no obligation on EH to then recommend that the land was descheduled - this would have left houseowners in the position of having to apply for SMC each time they wanted to plant a rose bush etc.
Common (i.e. commercial) sense prevailed and the developer paid for further excavation and publication, and the land was descheduled.
More generally however Sith is right here, it is for the applicant to demonstrate exactly how the scheme mitigation will acheive preservation in situ. The problem can then be that if subsequent studies show that the mitigation is not working (e.g the site is becoming dewatered when it should not have been), what action can be taken? Will the development need to be removed, or will additional mitigation be needed, or can the developer just pay an agreed fee/fine and try to do better next time?
Beamo
On a similar theme I was once involved in a housing development that was wholly within a Scheduled Monument. Some limited archaeological excavation had been undertaken and the previous landowner had somehow managed to get SMC and planning permission for residential development without any requirement for further archaeological work and had flogged the land to another developer (10 years later) on that basis. However EH pointed out that although the SMC allowed the construction of the housing estate, there was no obligation on EH to then recommend that the land was descheduled - this would have left houseowners in the position of having to apply for SMC each time they wanted to plant a rose bush etc.
Common (i.e. commercial) sense prevailed and the developer paid for further excavation and publication, and the land was descheduled.
More generally however Sith is right here, it is for the applicant to demonstrate exactly how the scheme mitigation will acheive preservation in situ. The problem can then be that if subsequent studies show that the mitigation is not working (e.g the site is becoming dewatered when it should not have been), what action can be taken? Will the development need to be removed, or will additional mitigation be needed, or can the developer just pay an agreed fee/fine and try to do better next time?
Beamo