10th September 2008, 05:46 PM
Hi Chaps
An archaeological evaluation (in terms of PPG16) is only carried out to provide sufficient information to make a reasoned judgement concerning the likely impacts a proposal will have on any remains present. It is meant to be (and 1man1desk is right) rapid and inexpensive and is intended to supply information on the character, extent and significance of archaeological remains on a site. Of course inexpensive is a relative judgement so a £30,000 evaluation on a massive infrastructure project is (extremely) inexpensive but would be prohibative on a single 1 bed house.
It is unreasonable to make a applicant carry out work that is prohibative to the proposal, however, it is not unreasonable to require a small evaluation on a single or two house development, even if the evaluation comes to say £3,000-£4,000.
If the applicant considers it unreasonable they can appeal against non-determination (or if refused due to lack of eval). However, as I've won appeals with these circumstances Inspectors clearly agree that the cost is reasonable. So I cannot agree with 1man1desk that this
"developer has to abandon the proposal because they can't afford the pre-planning investigation"
is a "real" scenerio. If somebody owns a piece of (lets even say allocated) land and wants to get permission and then sell it on they should be in the position to outlay appropriate costs to get that permission. If they are not then they will have to sell the land at a much reduced rate to somebody who has got the funds. That's life, get used to it! Its the same in most economic situations, people normally need to invest to get a return.
It more realistic that people who can't afford a couple of grand for a small scale evaluation couldn't have afforded the huge sums of money required to buy a piece of allocated land!
Steven
An archaeological evaluation (in terms of PPG16) is only carried out to provide sufficient information to make a reasoned judgement concerning the likely impacts a proposal will have on any remains present. It is meant to be (and 1man1desk is right) rapid and inexpensive and is intended to supply information on the character, extent and significance of archaeological remains on a site. Of course inexpensive is a relative judgement so a £30,000 evaluation on a massive infrastructure project is (extremely) inexpensive but would be prohibative on a single 1 bed house.
It is unreasonable to make a applicant carry out work that is prohibative to the proposal, however, it is not unreasonable to require a small evaluation on a single or two house development, even if the evaluation comes to say £3,000-£4,000.
If the applicant considers it unreasonable they can appeal against non-determination (or if refused due to lack of eval). However, as I've won appeals with these circumstances Inspectors clearly agree that the cost is reasonable. So I cannot agree with 1man1desk that this
"developer has to abandon the proposal because they can't afford the pre-planning investigation"
is a "real" scenerio. If somebody owns a piece of (lets even say allocated) land and wants to get permission and then sell it on they should be in the position to outlay appropriate costs to get that permission. If they are not then they will have to sell the land at a much reduced rate to somebody who has got the funds. That's life, get used to it! Its the same in most economic situations, people normally need to invest to get a return.
It more realistic that people who can't afford a couple of grand for a small scale evaluation couldn't have afforded the huge sums of money required to buy a piece of allocated land!
Steven