Archaeological Watching Brief

[RichS]

Has anyone been hit with one of these?????????

 

Unfortunately I have and am looking for any info on what it entails, cheapest way to carry it out, or is it possible to have it removed.

 

I understand the idea of it but on my site, If I go passive slab as planned, I will only be scraping off about 600mm over an area of about 150m² and a lot of this area has already been disturbed a number of years ago when I installed some deep soakaways. Would that be good enough reason to have this condition removed??

[Jeremy Harris]

Yes, the first plot we tried to buy had one as a planning condition.  I rang the county archaeologist to find out what it entailed and it was a bit open ended.  The best case was that we'd have to pay for an archaeologist to be on site for any days when there was any excavation work, and he advised that often they would allow a student to do this, at that time for around £120 a day (versus over £200 a day for a "proper" archaeologist). 

 

The snag is that the archaeologist has the authority to close you down if they find anything, and you have to pay the full cost of any ensuing investigation, as well as bear the cost of having to stop work.  In the case of the plot were wanted to buy, because there had already been two long test trenches dug across the plot as a part of getting PP, they knew there was archaeology there, and we had a rough estimate that the costs during the build were likely to be around £20k, plus a few weeks delay.

[Bitpipe]

We also had one - needed to commission a written scheme of investigation from an approved firm to discharge the planning condition and then have a junior on site for a day, plus follow up report. All cost about £1000 from memory.

 

To be fair, we were excavating about 450m3 for the basement and there had been previous neolithic finds a few 100m away so no wriggling out of it for us.

 

I'd talk to an Archeological consultant and get their view, given you're having a raft and not deep trenches, plus prior disturbance.

[JanetE]

Yep, we had the same. Same kind of slab as you. Had to go with it as there would have been a long delay if we'd appealed.  So we contacted a local archaeological company recommended by the local council (yep, jobs for the boys). They stand and watch as the surface is scraped off.  Luckily nothing was found, as we would of had to have paid for their extra time! They wrote a report & I think the bill came to about £1,500 or thereabouts for the whole lot.

 

So just keep your fingers crossed that nothing comes up !!

[RichS]

Thanks folks, not good news then!!

@JSHarris, if it costs me £20k i'd have to pull the plug on the whole idea.

Will have a word with my local council later and see what, if anything, I can do to remove the condition.

 

Just a thought, do they have to have a certain criteria before they can make this a condition. Directly across the road from my site there is a LARGE housing development in progress (100s) and as far as I can make out these did not have this condition imposed.

Edited April 10, 2017 by RichS

[Jeremy Harris]

My experience was that the county archaeologist was very helpful on the phone, and gave me a really good steer as to what might be involved.  The problem with that plot was that the owners had gone OTT in the planning application requirement for an archaeological survey, and had had two 5m long trenches, 1m wide and 1m deep dug across the site by the archaeologist they hired.  This found a cobbled floor, some wall foundations and a millstone, which then meant that when PP was granted it was public knowledge that there was a lot of archaeology under the site.

 

When I spoke to our county archaeologist, on behalf of another forum member here who was looking at a plot near to where we live, all she wanted was an archaeologist to watch over the top surface being scraped away, as there was a known neolithic settlement in the adjacent field.

 

Worth calling and asking, as if the site has already been disturbed a lot then the chances of there being major archaeological finds may well be pretty low, especially if your not digging down far.

[RichS]

@JSHarris

Thanks Jeremy.

I have just read my condition. The reason for it is "The site lies within an Area of Archaeological Importance".

Now the good news (I hope), I've googled those said areas and although they take in a large amount of the city centre, and a few outlying sites, one about a mile away from me, it doesn't actually cover my land. So as far as I can see this condition surely cannot be valid.

[Jeremy Harris]

If the condition can't be justified, because the planners have made an error, then you can ask them to remove it.  It sounds to me as if they may have included the condition by default; our PP originally included a condition removing permitted development, and when I questioned why it was there the planning officer just removed it.  I later found out that their boiler plate template has around three or four standard conditions that they automatically include, and this was one of them for our area.  It only applied to developments inside the conservation area, and our plot is adjacent to, but not within, that area (although it will be inside it at the next review, I've been told).

Edited April 10, 2017 by JSHarris

[RichS]

I'll make the phone call a little later, give them chance to wake up on a Monday , and let you know the outcome.

[Temp]

Before you speak to the planners make sure you are aware of the grounds under which you can appeal a condition. If they know you are serious about appealing the condition then they may back down and remove it without you having to appeal.

 

Not sure if this is up to date  but see...

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/use-of-planning-conditions

 

Quote

Paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework states “Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are:

1. necessary;
2. relevant to planning and;
3. to the development to be permitted;
4. enforceable;
5. precise and;
6. reasonable in all other respects.”

 

If it the condition fails any of these tests you stand a chance of winning at appeal.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Temp

[RichS]

@Temp

Thanks for that Temp.

I've emailed my contact in Planning and she in turn has passed it onto the councils archaeologist for her comments.

I'll be very surprised if they don't just remove the condition as the reason for it being applied is totally incorrect, which I would have thought invalidates it.

 

Watch this space

[RichS]

I've had a reply from planning on my request for removal of the watching brief, see attached;

 

I have discussed this with my manager and we are of the opinion that the condition is still valid. Our conservation officer has confirmed that the area lies in close proximity to evidence of Roman occupation. The condition does refer to Areas of Archaeological Importance in the reason but does not refer to any specific one and does not make reference to the Local Plan. The condition simply mean it is in an area where archaeological deposits may exist. Just because the site doesn’t lie within a formal AAI doesn’t mean it isn’t within an area of interest. The condition has been amended recently to make reference to areas of archaeological interest to make it clearer to interpret.

However, if you think the condition is not enforceable or does not meet the tests of a ‘condition’ you can apply to have it removed from the application. However, as we are of the opinion that there may be deposits on site it would be unlikely to be removed. If you chose not to undertake the watching brief we would have to assess whether it would be expedient for us to take enforcement action or not

So what are peoples thought on this?? 

I have made enquiries re. the large site adjacent to my plot and can confirm that this is not subject to the same condition. I really can't believe the the Romans camped on my 40m² of garden and completely ignored several acres of field 15 metres away.

[Jeremy Harris]

This sounds very much as if the Conservation Officer (CO) is pulling the strings.  CO's are a bit notorious for not having a balanced view, and being pretty much against any form of new development, so I'm not at all sure that their view can be considered to carry significant weight, in terms of the validity of the condition.

 

It might be an idea to collate information on where the evidence of Roman occupation is, as precisely as you can.  If you can show that the adjacent site, without this condition, is closer to the known evidence of Roman occupation, then I think it would be worth appealing the condition.  The advantage of an appeal is that it is considered on the hard facts that are presented, so the decision may be less likely to be swayed by personal opinions.

[Ferdinand]

11 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

This sounds very much as if the Conservation Officer (CO) is pulling the strings.  CO's are a bit notorious for not having a balanced view, and being pretty much against any form of new development, so I'm not at all sure that their view can be considered to carry significant weight, in terms of the validity of the condition.

 

It might be an idea to collate information on where the evidence of Roman occupation is, as precisely as you can.  If you can show that the adjacent site, without this condition, is closer to the known evidence of Roman occupation, then I think it would be worth appealing the condition.  The advantage of an appeal is that it is considered on the hard facts that are presented, so the decision may be less likely to be swayed by personal opinions.

 

In those circs it is worth talking to them first along the lines of "I am unhappy because xyz and I am willing to Appeal, so will you withdraw the condition".

 

Needs a check first that applying to have it removed won't cause you to go over the short time limit, or prevent you Appealing by procedure.

 

Need also to watch for possible tactics such as "thinking about it ... maybe ... verbal yes ... wait .. oops you are out of time but sorry I was waiting for a response from Councillor Stonewall". Verbal contract etc.

 

Ferdinand

Edited April 14, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Temp]

Sounds like they messed up.  My guess is they knew you were close to roman remains and would need to impose a watching brief condition but the Planning Officer  used their standard wording for such a condition rather than wording specific to your site. The reply you got from the planners even mentions that "The condition has been amended recently" meaning they have amended their standard wording.

 

If you wanted to appeal it you would have to show it failed one of the tests I mentioned above. It's important to separate the requirements of the condition from the reason given. If the planners decided to fight an appeal they are likely to argue the condition is valid even if the reason given isn't.

1. necessary - The planners will argue the watching brief is necessary to protect possible Roman remain. They might call an Archaeologist to give evidence. 
2. Relevant to planning - This sort of condition has been used many times before.
3. and to the development to be permitted - This is the debatable bit. You would be arguing that "Areas of Archaeological Importance" was capitalised so must refer to areas defined in the local plan not just any old area of archaeological importance. Since you aren't in an AAI the reason given is invalid. The planners would argue that even if the reason given isn't valid the condition itself passes all the tests (1 to 6) due to the "nearby" Roman remains. You would have to argue the remains were too far from your site to be relevant. Ideally find an archaeologist prepared to say it's unlikely there is anything under your site.
4. enforceable - Such conditions have been applied before.
5. precise - What's the exact wording of the condition? Must you get the brief agreed by the planners before work starts etc?
6. reasonable in all other respects. - Again you can try arguing it's not reasonable but if you loose on point 3 then you are likely to loose on point 6.

I think Appeal Inspectors can change the wording of a condition. They don't have to choose between upholding it or deleting it.

 

Might be worth finding out what Archeologists think of your site. 

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Temp

[Ferdinand]

4 hours ago, RichS said:

The condition has been amended recently to make reference to areas of archaeological interest to make it clearer to interpret.

 

I do not think that the Council has the power unlilaterally to alter a Planning Permission after it has been granted. To my eye that includes rewording a condition. Once it is baked in it should not be able to be un-cocked-up.

 

Perhaps ask them at the appropriate time under exactly which piece of Law they have the power to do this. I would say they are trying to avoid their elephant trap, perhaps by pulling the wool.

 

I would be needing to ask a planning consultant or Planning Aid to give me a definitive answer on this, and the implications. For the latter the question will need to be worded generically.

 

Ferdinand

Edited April 14, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Jeremy Harris]

They don't.  Once a condition has been applied and published in a Planning Decision Notice then it is fixed, and cannot be changed without the agreement of both the applicant and the planning officer.

[Temp]

+1

 

I'm sure they were referring to changes to their standard wording for such conditions not changes to the condition imposed on this application/grant.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Temp

[Ferdinand]

17 minutes ago, Temp said:

+1

 

I'm sure they were referring to changes to their standard wording for such conditions not changes to the condition imposed on this application/grant.

 

Quite possible :-).

 

But in that case that part of the letter is not relevant to the particular Planning App. 

 

I think that @Temp's 1-6 list is about right as comment. 

 

It is really up to the Op to decide their objectives.

 

Ferdinand

[TerryE]

In our case it was because there was some Saxon finds at the other end of the village.  I did point out that there were five other applications in progress (including a major primary school extension quite close to the find) that were breaking up unmade ground between us and the find, none of which had a watching brief requirement; moreover of these five + our site, all the others had been fields or pasture up to WW2 whereas ours had been in continuous use as farm yards since the 1600s so that it was extremely unlikely that any earlier remains wouldn't have been undisturbed.   The Local Archaeology Officer's response was that she could only make recommendations where the application had been referred to her and the others hadn't.

 

So it was a case of writing off 1½ grand in Archaeology fees, or "going to war" with the LPA and delaying the start of build for months.  We chose the former, because at best the former would be a Pyrrhic win.

 

FWIW, a watching brief is the cheapest of the options that the LPA can impose upon you.  You basically agree with the Archaeology consultants where you are going to disturb the site below modern made-up surface, and they have to watch as your builder strips down either to the final depth or to unmade ground (in our case the virgin clay).  If you coordinate with with your builder and he has a suitable caterpillar or digger, then you shouldn't have them on-site for more than 1½ - 2 person days for a typical dwelling.  If you muck them about or keep them waiting, then you pay.

 

Ours just stood and watched and got excited about some 16-17c cattle pen post holes. but that was it.  They then write a report saying that they found nothing -- and one which no one reads.  That is unless they do find something of genuine archaeological merit and then you have to pay ££s  

[billt]

About 3 years ago I wanted to add to our PV installation, quite a large (by domestic standards) ground mounted array. We could have just installed it and probably no one would have noticed, but I thought it probably best to get PP for it.

Unfortunately there is a small moated site (a square ditch) about 30M behind our house which was scheduled a few years ago (a process which is done on the say so of one individual and to which there is no realistic prospect of appeal). This meant that our application was referred to English Heritage and the county archaeologist (who had already spotted the application, as it's part of his job to monitor planning applications) and resulted in an archaelogical condition being added to the consent.

 

I was pretty disgusted at that as the site is well away from the scheduled monument and the ground disturbance was only about 2 dozen post holes for the array mountings and a 20M trench, the costs of a watching brief would have been totally disproportionate to the value of the project - about 10-15% of the total cost.

 

In fact the county archaeologist was very helpful after I had whinged to him about the unreasonableness of the condition. He offered to come out and do the watching brief himself during the morning when I drilled the mounting holes and dug the trench. I thought that was a very fair and generous action considering that it was well outside his job remit, so they aren't all bad. (Mind you, I never submitted a written scheme of investigation, so my PP is probably void!)

 

Unfortunately, the presence of the scheduled monument mean that any future planning application for work on our property will have an archaeological condition, which will make me very wary about applying in the future.

[JaneM]

We have an archaeological condition which initially would have involved investigating our whole site of one and a half acres, we are building one house.  

After months of dialogue with all parties involved we have been able to dilute the condition to a topography map and a watching brief for all the places which will be dug/disturbing.

 

Our known monument is the moat on the neighbouring property which just creeps into our plot but has been filled in. There is also the possibility of a hollow way.

After what felt like endless hours of talking to some very helpful archaeological contractors we are about to submit our application to get this condition agreed and start the possess of getting it discharged.

 

The whole discharging of this condition has been very confusing and I hope we are now on the road to getting our build started.

 

We are keeping our fingers crossed that the cost involved with the archaeology doesn't impact too heavily on our budget.

 

 

 

[RichS]

Good news

 

I managed to get this condition removed.

 

 

[PeterW]

Excellent !!

 

Get digging ....!

[Ferdinand]

14 hours ago, RichS said:

Good news

 

I managed to get this condition removed.

 

 

 

Great news @RichS

 

It would be useful to know the key points that convinced them, if you could post a summary.

 

Ferdinand

Edited April 28, 2017 by Ferdinand