Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Diggers Forum. Anonymous Complaints.
#31
Kettleness I had a go at "HS" last year http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?...+statement and in my considered opinion the answer is to never do one and do an evaluation instead. I will never ever again in my life ever write "Heritage statement" on anything unless I am using it to waste the mounties time. I presume that cif will have a code and standard for it. You can find my only go at it here http://publicaccess.e-lindsey.gov.uk/onl...APR_116743 The various mounties comments are worth a look at. The client lost the appeal 5/4 and I presume should go to the inspector. The planning committee did not even glance at the heritage consideration let alone my credentials.

Why are you wasting your time on somebody else's HS and with moaning to cif although I suppose that it presumably means that you wont bother with them anymore. BAJR used to claim on wiki that it gave cif a hard time but now that hosty has "accidently" decided again to pay a tithe to call himself an archaeologist and flashing a mifa badge it wont belong before I will be brought to task for leaving off the a.

Dino the public don't give a s... that you have moved on to the next project. I am though quite interested in these new ideas that you are concerned about. As I have said elsewhere heres an example of ideas published in 2010 from a project run by a charity unit on council pensions for a council road scheme who haven't published the site report yet but are out there getting "clicks". Seems to have been downloaded 111 times in the last year http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.11...alCode=med
I presume this is what you mean by public domain
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Reply
#32
Well i have had read of the planning documents you Linked Marc...(see, some of us care)

I have to say i agree with EH, who said clearly in the pre-planning stage that they would not support development on the site - based principley on the proximity to three SAMs. EH clearly state their opinion, based on existing knowledge, and that in their view there was no need for intrusive investigation at the site, as they already had sufficient information to conclude that they did not support the development.

Why did you advise your client that they should pay you to dig an evaluation trench anyway ? As the Heritage Officer says, this only demonstrated what they had already expected; ie medieval features were present, and no significance to the planning recommendation, as this was based principally on the proximity of the SAM...EH clearly stated this in pre-planning...


Your Conclusion for the Evaluation is (and i quote word-for-word, the entirety of the section)

"Archaeological features containing medieval material from the mid-late 12th century AD were found 0.8m below the general surface of the site. The site has been disturbed by a modern rubbish pit to a depth of 1 meter."


wells that's about as neither-here-no-there as it could get ,,,, > do you think you helped your Client?? > did they pay you, or was it pro-bono?(lol)

I find it interesting that you originally suggested that a watching brief would provide suitable mitigation > something EH and the CC obviously did not agree with > ... however, with a conclusion like that, you are right - it might as well have been.
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)

I don't know why you find it surprising that the application was turned down (as EH already said it should be from their perspective) - if you look, you will also see a whole bunch of objections from Neighbors, which may have had a more significant impact.

Can you tell us your reasoning for conducting the intrusive work?, despite not being asked for by Planning?..., and in light of existing objections to development from EH (were you even aware - you do not mention EH in your Heritage Statement or Evaluation Report?!) ....

[one day, maybe, back on TOPIC, pls MB , ffs..]
Reply
#33
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:

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
Reply
#34
Like GnomeKing I've also read the application details. The comments of the district's archaeological advisor and those of Historic England (English Heritage as was) are freely available to view.

The EH advice seems clear, they responded at the pre-application stage to say that the principle of development here was not supported by them, but the applicant went forward with an application in any event. EH subsequently objected to the planning application on the basis that it would result in unjustified harm to the adjacent Scheduled Monument. There's nothing in the application documentation to suggest that EH haven't been entirely consistent in their advice.

The advice by the County Archaeological Officer seems to me a little more mixed in message, they are not saying that the principle of the development is unacceptable, merely that there isn't sufficient information for them to make an informed decision. They have said that additional assessment is required in order for them to make an informed decision, and that unless that information is forthcoming the application should be refused.

Having looked at the Heritage Statement, I'm afraid I would agree with the comments of EH. The Heritage Statement simply doesn't seem to be that good nor does it properly get to grips with the issues relating to the setting of the Scheduled Monument. In another thread there's is discussion about falling standards, but we don't do ourselves any favours as a profession by taking on work for which we don't have the necessary skills or experience to undertake. If you don't know how to produce a Heritage Statement, then perhaps the responsible thing is to tell your client that, not take their money and have a go?

I don't entirely agree with the comments made by the County Archaeological Officer. I think in this instance (despite the failings of the Heritage Statement) there is enough information to make an informed recommendation. I'm not sure what additional information that the archaeological officer thinks they need? Clearly EH felt they had enough information to recommend refusal and that seems an entirely justifiable position.

Marc Berger Wrote: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:

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.

The application didn't go as an appeal, and it does seem worrying to me that you are happy to provide planning advice to clients, but don't seem to understand what stage of the planning process the case is at. There was a previous application that had been refused and appealed, but this was a new application. The officer recommendation was one for refusal, but the application was called in by a member for determination by the planning committee - not the same as an appeal. It is interesting that you say archaeology/heritage wasn't mentioned at the committee meeting as that's not what the published minutes say, which note that "Members noted... the fact that the site had important heritage assets and was not sustainable". If the published minutes are wrong that is a serious accusation...

It seems to me from the minutes that members accepted that the application was not acceptable on heritage grounds and was not sustainably located, therefore there was no need to debate these issues in detail. Members instead considered whether there were any positive benefits that would outweigh the reasons for refusal. Clearly they felt there weren't and therefore the application was refused on the grounds given in the officer report. All seems above board, no conspiracy here.

Did you charge for the Heritage Statement and evaluation? If so I must say I feel sorry for your client; they paid a "professional" to produce a Heritage Statement, and despite not knowing what a Heritage Statement should contain you went ahead and took the commission anyway. Then to make matters worse charged for an evaluation, when the guidance from the LPA's heritage advisors was that one wasn't needed? If I was your client I think I'd be asking for my money back...
Reply
#35
Tmsarch I must admit that I have not looked at any minutes but was at the committee meeting and if heritage was mentioned it must have been sailed over my head. I have tried to source these minutes this morning without any success. The eldc web appears to be broken. I don't imagine that it will be a "serious matter" but that the case officer kind of mangled together their advisors mangled hysterics for the decision notice in their spare time. I defiantly did not hear anything remotely like the decision notice statement:

Quote: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.


and if as you the minutes say the fact that the site had important heritage assets I am not sure what they might exactly be even though I did the evaluation.

May I assure you that I told the client from the outset that a heritage statement had nothing what so ever to do with field archaeology and as far as I could see is not mentioned in nppf indeed nppf mentions desk based. I informed the mounty that I never done one and that nppf mentions desk based. The Mounty then proceeded to speak in runes. I them informed my client that I would only attempt it as an experiment, I produced various and the client cut and pasted what ever they wanted into it and sent it of to I care not whom.

Obviously you and the mounty believe that being able to interpret a heritage statement from the verbiage of nppf is a sign of professionalism.. As far as I am concerned buried within my "not being able to see the woods for the trees" (is it cause the archaeology "setting" is buried underground) document which I hasten to add was always a draft that i was using to try and get site visits out of the heritage "professionals" is a desk based assessment based on an field archaeologist researching some archaeology around the site and visiting the site. I am though mortified that you think it's rubbish and that I should not charge for such.

Am I surprised that you would want to question my assumption that this application was an appeal? I must admit that all this paying for applications and discharge fees to get a decision to build on your own land I don't really agree with particularly when TCPA is put forward by heritage professionals as somehow protecting archaeology (and please note the use of the word archaeology and not heritage). It seems to me that the committee or case officers could just as merrily granted the decision and also failed to impose an archaeology condition after hysterics from the heritage professionals. Heres an example of pinky and perky at work with the result that no archaeology got done on the site that I am aware of. http://publicaccess.e-lindsey.gov.uk/onl...APR_112891. It seems to me that they should be screaming para128 at these applications (which they did in my clients situation) and by that I mean that the council has not got enough information to consider the application and not going down the putting any "assessment" phase post-determination with a wsi term. But I digress, my evaluation site had been the site of an appeal the year before, this was the statement from the previous appeal to an inspector for the site containing the archaeology
Quote:23. The area within the appeal site would remain in very close proximity to the scheduled feature and would have potential archaeological interest. It would also form part of the setting of the scheduled site. The guidance of the Framework is clear that in such circumstances any application for planning permission should describe the significance of a heritage asset affected, including any contribution made by its setting. An appropriate desk-based assessment is required, and potentially a field evaluation.
. Gosh its as if they have read NPPF, no mention of heritage statement and presume that what they meant by "potentially" is that the desk based might have found that the site did not need an evaluation even though it was by a scheduled monument. What the inspector did not say and what I am saying is that the planning authority should have had all this information in order to make the decision. How could the inspector find that the planning authority had made a proper decision. That decision is whats fucked by para128 "In determining applications, local planning authorities should require" but everybody in the system including the inspector probably imagines this

Quote:It seems to me from the minutes that members accepted that the application was not acceptable on heritage grounds and was not sustainably located, therefore there was no need to debate these issues in detail. Members instead considered whether there were any positive benefits that would outweigh the reasons for refusal. Clearly they felt there weren't and therefore the application was refused on the grounds given in the officer report. All seems above board, no conspiracy here.


what debate, nice use of "heritage grounds" or do you mean receptacle. Not conspiracy, Institutionalism.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Reply
#36
Sikelgaita Wrote:Oh no! Is everyone posting here actually a clone of Unitof1!

Marc can't be, he replied to a Unit post on the 'Merger' thread...admittedly after a 5 year gap.... :face-kiss:
Reply
#37
Bring back unitof1
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Reply
#38
Have you thought to ask Diggers Forum about this? (The original post not the stuff in between).
Reply
#39
They might be able to help with that too, though Big Grin
Reply
#40
Marc Berger Wrote:..I them informed my client that I would only attempt it as an experiment..

I'm astonished that that call didn't end with you tapping the receiver and asking "are you still there?".
D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  ?....How much to be a member of the one and only bajr forum Marc Berger 19 4,083 22nd August 2014, 02:29 PM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  Nat Geo Nazi Diggers Show. BAJR 6 2,054 3rd April 2014, 10:29 AM
Last Post: BAJR
  Last Chance for teh Diggers Forum Session in London BAJR 1 837 28th October 2013, 11:31 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  New forum for the SNAP Scheme John Wells 1 590 22nd August 2013, 11:23 PM
Last Post: John Wells
  CSCS cards and IFA membership in job adverisements for diggers...what a laugh BigALtheDiggerman 55 9,421 13th August 2013, 02:17 PM
Last Post: Jack
  Diggers' Forum Survey on CPD and Training provision in UK Commercial Archaeology chiz 26 5,320 18th April 2013, 05:35 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  Open Forum: Discussing pay and Conditions in Archaeology BAJR 12 3,111 28th March 2013, 02:03 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  Diggers Forum and TAG BAJR 2 1,122 20th December 2012, 01:36 PM
Last Post: chiz
  A handbook for new diggers? Martin Locock 262 36,041 31st May 2012, 07:59 PM
Last Post: monty
  Archaeology as a Career: The Way Forward: Diggers Forum/Prospect Conference 14th July kevin wooldridge 1 734 1st May 2012, 10:10 AM
Last Post: kevin wooldridge

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)