10th September 2008, 06:27 PM
This all came about from a discussion of watching briefs on a different thread as I rather fuzzily remember. It was suggested that watching briefs were being used in certain (northern) areas, without evaluations being conducted beforehand to inform their purpose, as there was pressure to get developments underway. The original point, related to whether or not it was reasonable to request an evaluation on a site, if it was a small development proposal (for example, for one house). My own response was basically to say yes, I considered that it was indeed reasonable. I would want an evaluation to investigate whether or not any archaeological remains were present in an impact area, and if so, whether or not the development proposals were placing said remains under threat of destruction and therefore in need of mitigation. My original posting contains a quote from another post, so it's slightly out of context, and as mentioned, it's abbreviated too!
Generally, I wouldn't consider it all that reasonable to ask for a potentially cost-prohibitive pre-determination evaluation on an small undesignated site, and if I remember rightly, the example I gave also related to a post-determination evaluation, whereby the developer was able to calculate his costs and potential margins once he had a viable permission, with all the other conditions attached. Similarly however, National, County and District policies would support pre-determination investigations - particularly in an already designated area of known archaeological potential, and if this was cost-prohibitive then, as 1 man 1 desk suggests, the polluter pays principle applies and that's tough - exactly the same as if the cost of removing Great-Crested Newts or Slow-Worms or squatters from the site was prohibitive to development.
Generally, I wouldn't consider it all that reasonable to ask for a potentially cost-prohibitive pre-determination evaluation on an small undesignated site, and if I remember rightly, the example I gave also related to a post-determination evaluation, whereby the developer was able to calculate his costs and potential margins once he had a viable permission, with all the other conditions attached. Similarly however, National, County and District policies would support pre-determination investigations - particularly in an already designated area of known archaeological potential, and if this was cost-prohibitive then, as 1 man 1 desk suggests, the polluter pays principle applies and that's tough - exactly the same as if the cost of removing Great-Crested Newts or Slow-Worms or squatters from the site was prohibitive to development.