Whats in their briefs?

[Marc Berger]

Exactly Prentice, What law?

Under NPPF planning conditions should not normally be discharged until archiving is complete.

Is NPPF a law? And where in NPPF does it mention that the condition is discharged when archiving is complete.

141 is the only Paragraph that mentions archiving but it uses archives as evidence and is presumably intended for pre application decision making

141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of
the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development
management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to
record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets
to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance
and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated)
publicly accessible.30 However, the ability to record evidence of our past
should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

How can it not be a factor if it is a condition?

What I would also like to see is briefs should be within the six tests for NPPF
http://planningguidance.communities.gov....pf-policy/

I think that if planning archaeologists looked at this that they would see that the only available CIFA standard that they could endorse post application is a Watching brief. I don't think that evaluation or building recording can get passed

the ability to record evidence of our past
should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted

and that includes any contrived surveys like topographic or geophysics survey.

I take some comfort from this website http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/pla...nd-surveys which I think also presents a correct CIFA view of NPPF

Archaeological implications will be a material consideration for the Local Planning Authority when making a planning decision. If further archaeological work is necessary this can be secured, either by the use of a planning condition or by a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

In other cases, particularly small-scale development, recording of archaeological remains during development may be advised; this is known as a watching brief and will normally be secured by a planning condition.

Come on show us your briefs or lack of them or that in fact in most of the country archaeologists are doing all the work pre application and in places like Lincolnshire that the LPAs don't need to pay for monitors for watching brief work.

[Alastair]

in places like Lincolnshire that the LPAs don't need to pay for monitors for watching brief work.

Can you explain that a bit more? How do you expect LPAs to assess the acceptability of archaeological work when the developer applies for discharge of conditions without appropriate professional advice? What happens if the "watching brief" turns up something that changes the picture and a new scheme of works has to be agreed?

[Marc Berger]

Hello Alastair There shouldn't be any acceptable works that require consideration of the acceptability of archaeological work that would be required to be undertaken to discharge a condition apart from watching briefs. What qualities of an archaeologists watching a digger driver they want to monitor I don't think should be the subject of unlawful development. The argument might be more should there always be a watching brief following an evaluation if the evaluation has not gone to excavation.

What you might want to concern yourself with is the instigation of a watching brief without a prior assessment of the heritage assess as required in para 128 and 129 NPPF but often ignored in a majority of planning applications in Lincolnshire. I found it questionavble that in PPG16 negative conditions calling for a WSI presented for the situation of a site going to excavation was spread by many authorities to the use of negative conditions for a watching brief without evaluation. PPG16 had its own 141 caveat

the same token developers should not expect to obtain planning permission for archaeologically damaging development merely because they arrange for the recording of sites whose physical preservation in situ is both desirable (because of their level of importance) and feasible.

However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

Alistair I would dearly love the LPAs to assess the acceptability of the archaeology so that they could show the public their incorporation of heritage in "plan making" and "develop management" and also make the evidence used locally available and by locally available I mean within the LPA area......not at the county level. The LPAs use the LCC planning archaeologists as Statutory consultees and they aren't.

[Marc Berger]

Maybe the question should be what proportion of jobs have briefs nowadays and at what part of the planning process?

[Steven]

I hope that you don't know how many times in the last few months I have been asked how come this is not a problem to other archaeologists but I still have all the finds that I have dug up.

Hi All
As a matter of interest an appeal decision (APP/Y507/W/15/1327969) may have a bearing on this.

The appeal was concerned with an applicant attempting to remove two conditions rating to archaeology, one of which was for excavation and the second that all the finds from the excavation should be deposited at the museum. The inspector decided that these conditions were reasonable, required, and fitted the impacts on the archaeology so were NPPF compliant.

In other words it's reasonable (in planning terms) to require a developer to hand over finds from an excavation so

[Marc Berger]

Sounds good. Cant get 7 digit number to be accepted on Inspectors Portal.

[Marc Berger]

Steven, thanks for the exercise, I had to get Bletchley Park to work it out in the end. 3127969

isn’t about artefacts its just about the inspector is probably an ex planning officer and thinks that everybody is familiar with the mounties briefs. If any thing it has gone out of its way not mention artifacts

There is no way that anybody can work out what archaeological mitigation is from the Conditions, it needs a brief. If the inspector had applied the six tests to the actual Conditions it would have failed but they fiddle the scope and this one manages not to mention any "briefs", pretends to assess the archaeology and hay presto the county mounties get away with it again. Can a planning inspectors decision be appealed?

Theres no actual wording of what the applicant appealed.

[P Prentice]

Steven, thanks for the exercise, I had to get Bletchley Park to work it out in the end. 3127969

isn’t about artefacts its just about the inspector is probably an ex planning officer and thinks that everybody is familiar with the mounties briefs. If any thing it has gone out of its way not mention artifacts

There is no way that anybody can work out what archaeological mitigation is from the Conditions, it needs a brief. If the inspector had applied the six tests to the actual Conditions it would have failed but they fiddle the scope and this one manages not to mention any "briefs", pretends to assess the archaeology and hay presto the county mounties get away with it again. Can a planning inspectors decision be appealed?

Theres no actual wording of what the applicant appealed.

give us lazies a link then sherlock

[Marc Berger]

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/

[BAJR]

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/...d=13416164

For the appeal descision

interesting response