11th August 2008, 12:22 PM
Hi Chaps
Work such as you describe would be considered engineering work under the TCPA in terms of both Operation and Use. It is also classed as "building" as it is work normally carried out by a builder and is part of a process to permanently attach a "structure" to the ground. The fact that the developer is carrying out the work in advance of lodging a planning application makes it a clear that it is a planning issue and so does the fact the the work has materially changed the use of the site.
So all of this work would need planning permission and is not a loophole. Maybe more importantly to profesional archaeology is that the archaeological unit should have checked with the LPA archie before starting this job as it was always likely to be a planning issue and if they are a RAO or IFA Member they might be in slightly murky waters concerning IFA Stardards.
The solution is therefore simple enforcement action against the developer and the LPA archie now has very good reasons to require a predetermination evaluation if they need any more info, or in fact refuse permission if the archaeology so warrants.
Ponds are more of an issue. A pond is normally permitted development (say a garden fishpond) unless it is over 0.25 hectares or is used for commercial purposes (such as storing water for firefighting or fish stocking for fishing etc). The Environment Agency sometimes build ponds when they have borrow pits (in clay for example) and then allow the pit to fill with water to provide the landowner a pond. This is normally considered not planning because of the EA statuary duties and because the pond would be for wildlife reasons. If the landowner then wanted to use it for fishing and charged people they would need planning permission for the change of use (and possibly retrospectively for the pond).
Steven
Work such as you describe would be considered engineering work under the TCPA in terms of both Operation and Use. It is also classed as "building" as it is work normally carried out by a builder and is part of a process to permanently attach a "structure" to the ground. The fact that the developer is carrying out the work in advance of lodging a planning application makes it a clear that it is a planning issue and so does the fact the the work has materially changed the use of the site.
So all of this work would need planning permission and is not a loophole. Maybe more importantly to profesional archaeology is that the archaeological unit should have checked with the LPA archie before starting this job as it was always likely to be a planning issue and if they are a RAO or IFA Member they might be in slightly murky waters concerning IFA Stardards.
The solution is therefore simple enforcement action against the developer and the LPA archie now has very good reasons to require a predetermination evaluation if they need any more info, or in fact refuse permission if the archaeology so warrants.
Ponds are more of an issue. A pond is normally permitted development (say a garden fishpond) unless it is over 0.25 hectares or is used for commercial purposes (such as storing water for firefighting or fish stocking for fishing etc). The Environment Agency sometimes build ponds when they have borrow pits (in clay for example) and then allow the pit to fill with water to provide the landowner a pond. This is normally considered not planning because of the EA statuary duties and because the pond would be for wildlife reasons. If the landowner then wanted to use it for fishing and charged people they would need planning permission for the change of use (and possibly retrospectively for the pond).
Steven