14th June 2015, 09:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 15th June 2015, 01:44 AM by Marc Berger.)
HI think that I have mentioned that this application went as an appeal to the planning committee. Alarmed with my histerical statement and field evaluation, l went to the party as well and I can assure you that not a single mention was made of the heritage/archaeology issues by the committee so I am still quite interested in the final decision notice which said:
presumably we must appreciate "appropriate". I will though do my very best with any unacceptable harm to "my" archaeological record. Para 128 starts with "in determining applications". Any way I think that this is amongst some of my best work
As gnome you say they were against it because they had "sufficient" information but the background to this application is that the previous year a previous planning application for the development had been denied in the decision notice on the grounds:
Now its an interesting kind of rejection based on the client not giving information that the authority was willing to quote from its HER to suggest its lack of archaeological information for the site as well as suggesting although to add to the confusion it appears to suggest that para 128 should only(?) be instigated in the circumstance of a site being adjacent to scheduled ancient monument and in the vicinity of others...if somebody gives you a stick to beat yourself with use the words "archaeological sensitivity" rather than heritage....
The client came to me after this rejection with the intention of resubmitting to address this unknown harm amongst other objections in the decision. Now my first reading of para 128 was that the more the potential significance the more that "field evaluation" would be appropriate but I being a good sort went and sort advice of the mounty who also seemed of the opinion that this development would not be approved (presumably like you impressed by the numbers of local objectors) and instructed me to produce a heritage statement. I said couldn't I do a desk-based? they said no that that it had to be a heritage assessment but the general gist appeared to be that I should not call it a desk based assessment. I asked for an example of recent heritage statements that I might look at and was given the go and find it my self as they could not recommend any. I persisted and eventually I was directed to this example which also had a sort of scheduled thingy next to it.
http://publicaccess.e-lindsey.gov.uk/onl...APR_113382
which I read and as the development was still current I then rang the mounty up to ask about the out come as it appeared to me that it had called for a watching brief (possibly one of a bizarre strip map and record variety) although buried in one part of the verbiage it could also appear that an evaluation had been called for. What I was interested in was that it appeared that the archaeology was not mentioned in the decision notice and I was also interested in whether in a heritage statement I should propose the level of mitigation. The mounty could not see any sense in my questions and refused to discuss the matter further. I rang the consultancy to inquire as to the possibility that they had undertaken an evaluation or had insisted that a watching brief of any form had been performed. They were unaware of any interventions. I might suggest that they sounded surprised. I set forth and produced what I would call a homage to the scrivilsby document. I was particularly impressed by the handling of the walled garden pictured figure 18 sec 2, even more so than the 13th cent church that appears to have floated in an open field for all of its existence but I was even more impressed by the web records not showing any comments from histerical England or the mounty for that matter.
So I thought that I would first submit my hysterical statement on EH for their comments but mainly because I was interested if I could get a site visit out of them. Unfortunately it appeared merely to have enlisted the comments to the planning committee and pretty much made me feel that we had reached critical evaluation mass.
Quote:2. The application is not supported by an appropriate evaluation of heritage
impact, would have unacceptable harmful impact on the setting of a
significant nearby heritage asset and risks unacceptable harm to the
archaeological record. This would be contrary to Paragraph 128 of the
National Planning Policy Framework.
presumably we must appreciate "appropriate". I will though do my very best with any unacceptable harm to "my" archaeological record. Para 128 starts with "in determining applications". Any way I think that this is amongst some of my best work
As gnome you say they were against it because they had "sufficient" information but the background to this application is that the previous year a previous planning application for the development had been denied in the decision notice on the grounds:
Quote:3. The application site is located on land adjacent to a scheduled ancient
monument and in the vicinity of two others. In such circumstances
paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework calls for the
applicant to describe the significance of the heritage assets sufficient to
understand the potential impact of the proposal on that significance. In this
case the site is potentially of archaeological sensitivity and no such
assessment of significance appropriate to the site has been submitted. It is
therefore not possible for the Local Planning Authority to assess the likely
impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage assets which may
lead to unknown harm contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
Now its an interesting kind of rejection based on the client not giving information that the authority was willing to quote from its HER to suggest its lack of archaeological information for the site as well as suggesting although to add to the confusion it appears to suggest that para 128 should only(?) be instigated in the circumstance of a site being adjacent to scheduled ancient monument and in the vicinity of others...if somebody gives you a stick to beat yourself with use the words "archaeological sensitivity" rather than heritage....
The client came to me after this rejection with the intention of resubmitting to address this unknown harm amongst other objections in the decision. Now my first reading of para 128 was that the more the potential significance the more that "field evaluation" would be appropriate but I being a good sort went and sort advice of the mounty who also seemed of the opinion that this development would not be approved (presumably like you impressed by the numbers of local objectors) and instructed me to produce a heritage statement. I said couldn't I do a desk-based? they said no that that it had to be a heritage assessment but the general gist appeared to be that I should not call it a desk based assessment. I asked for an example of recent heritage statements that I might look at and was given the go and find it my self as they could not recommend any. I persisted and eventually I was directed to this example which also had a sort of scheduled thingy next to it.
http://publicaccess.e-lindsey.gov.uk/onl...APR_113382
which I read and as the development was still current I then rang the mounty up to ask about the out come as it appeared to me that it had called for a watching brief (possibly one of a bizarre strip map and record variety) although buried in one part of the verbiage it could also appear that an evaluation had been called for. What I was interested in was that it appeared that the archaeology was not mentioned in the decision notice and I was also interested in whether in a heritage statement I should propose the level of mitigation. The mounty could not see any sense in my questions and refused to discuss the matter further. I rang the consultancy to inquire as to the possibility that they had undertaken an evaluation or had insisted that a watching brief of any form had been performed. They were unaware of any interventions. I might suggest that they sounded surprised. I set forth and produced what I would call a homage to the scrivilsby document. I was particularly impressed by the handling of the walled garden pictured figure 18 sec 2, even more so than the 13th cent church that appears to have floated in an open field for all of its existence but I was even more impressed by the web records not showing any comments from histerical England or the mounty for that matter.
So I thought that I would first submit my hysterical statement on EH for their comments but mainly because I was interested if I could get a site visit out of them. Unfortunately it appeared merely to have enlisted the comments to the planning committee and pretty much made me feel that we had reached critical evaluation mass.
Quote:BTW - top marks for the sieving and magnet work, although as part of unnecessary interventions without a research plan i am not sure of the point)thanks for top marks for something I would do ordinarily. I certainly do not need a research plan to justify a field evaluation even without paragraph 128. I hope that keeps us on topic
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist