Planning condition archaeology watch order

asdv

We have been hit out of the blue (the council's pre-application report gave no warning of possible archaeological interest) with a condition on our planning permission (renovate a derelict house) that requires employing an archaeologist to watch all ground disturbance involved in the building works. The plot is rural, isolated, within an SSSI.

If items of interest are found we are liable for all the costs of recording and recovering them to a museum. There is no cap or upper limit on the costs. If it escalates beyond a few thousand then we could not afford to pay and so the work would have to stop and we would not be able to complete the house. It would then be very hard to sell up at a price that would not leave us well out of pocket but that would probably be the only option to get out of the situation.

How difficult is it to get such a condition removed?

EachPenny

asdv wrote: »

We have been hit out of the blue (the council's pre-application report gave no warning of possible archaeological interest) with a condition on our planning permission (renovate a derelict house) that requires employing an archaeologist to watch all ground disturbance involved in the building works. The plot is rural, isolated, within an SSSI.

If items of interest are found we are liable for all the costs of recording and recovering them to a museum. There is no cap or upper limit on the costs. If it escalates beyond a few thousand then we could not afford to pay and so the work would have to stop and we would not be able to complete the house. It would then be very hard to sell up at a price that would not leave us well out of pocket but that would probably be the only option to get out of the situation.

How difficult is it to get such a condition removed?

You have the right of appeal, but that may take a while, and the condition would only be removed if it is unfair, unreasonable or unlawful. If the council have grounds for believing there is something in the site of archeological interest then you would have your work cut out to win an appeal.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-permission-england-wales/appeals (England and Wales)

Does the condition define 'ground disturbance'? If it only applies to excavation below a certain depth then is it possible to carry out the work minimising deeper excavation?

How much ground disturbance were you planning to do? Can you phase the work so all ground disturbance is carried out over a relatively short period of time, minimising the number of days the archaeologist needs to be present?

If something of significant interest is found then there is not much you can do about it. (is there anything in the condition regarding you benefitting from valuable finds? E.g. 'treasure trove') Do you know why the site is of archaeological interest? There could be orders of magnitude cost difference between something like an iron age burial mound and a victorian industrial building.

Have you checked the Council's strategic planning documents - is there anything on the planning maps to indicate your property is in a site of particular archaeological interest? When you purchased the property did anything come up in the searches?

asdv

Thanks for the reply - some useful ideas there.

The law is clearly on the council's side on this, and there are some archaeology finds in the vicinity which triggered the condition, although both they and the property (a small Victorian farmhouse) are not of particular interest and did not show up in the searches during purchase, hence my considerable surprise when the condition was placed.

The plan is to try and get the condition cleared in 1 or 2 days by digging all the groundworks required (drainage, septic tank and soakaways, trench to a water supply) but not stopping to install anything at the time. If nothing is found and the groundworks contractor only has to sit idle for an hour or two then the costs might be roughly £1,200 - 2,200 perhaps. There is ferry charges, hotel, meals and mileage for the archaeologist, on top of their daily fee.

It is Scotland so all the artefacts found belong to the government.

I suppose I am really checking that this condition is not one of those 'try-on' things that if you are in the know (ie. professional developer) can be countered fairly simply but which non-professionals like me are likely to accept without question.

It is difficult not to feel taken advantage of, tricked even. Being made to write out an open cheque in order get permission to renovate and live in your own house feels fundamentally wrong. If, as the law seems to state, archaeology carried out in a home-owner's garden is a necessity for the public interest then it would seem right that the public purse pays for it.

I wonder if I have a case under Humna Rights law... that the low level archaeological interest in this instance is not a good enough reason for a public authority to place such a financial burden and restriction on my use of my property?

Fire_Fox

asdv wrote: »

It is Scotland so all the artefacts found belong to the government.

It is difficult not to feel taken advantage of, tricked even. Being made to write out an open cheque in order get permission to renovate and live in your own house feels fundamentally wrong. If, as the law seems to state, archaeology carried out in a home-owner's garden is a necessity for the public interest then it would seem right that the public purse pays for it.

I wonder if I have a case under Humna Rights law... that the low level archaeological interest in this instance is not a good enough reason for a public authority to place such a financial burden and restriction on my use of my property?

The property is derelict not a house as such, and you seem to have purchased with no certainty of planning permission being granted. IMO it is not the same as maintaining or altering your family home as circumstances change.

I suspect the justification is not that professionally digging the site is a necessity, but that the works you have proposed will potentially destroy any artefacts, or their archaeological context. The favoured alternative is simply to leave a potentially important site undisturbed.

HTH.

onomatopoeia99

asdv wrote: »

I wonder if I have a case under Humna Rights law... that the low level archaeological interest in this instance is not a good enough reason for a public authority to place such a financial burden and restriction on my use of my property?

While under Protocol 1 article 1 you have the right to peacable enjoyment of your possessions, it might be a huge stretch to argue digging trenches is "peacable enjoyment" ...



If you want to pursue a human rights case you need to speak to a specilist solicitor in the first instance, not a bunch of people on a forum. You can expect that to cost a good deal more than a few thousand if you intend to bring it to a senior court.

System

speak to a local archaeologist, they'll be able to tell you if they would expect to find anything on the site, I've had some that have produced a desktop study which concluded they didn't need to observe anything on site! It'll be cheaper and easier to just get an archaeologist on board than trying to get a human rights lawyer to take it through the courts!:eek:

asdv

I've had planning permission for works that included groundworks to two other (the only other) homes I've lived in during my life, both within 400m of a Roman Villa site, and both had no archaeology conditions. One is a listed building.

asdv

the_r_sole wrote: »

speak to a local archaeologist, they'll be able to tell you if they would expect to find anything on the site, I've had some that have produced a desktop study which concluded they didn't need to observe anything on site!

One is on board already but perhaps I should shop around for an alternative - that sounds like a great result!

asdv

Fire_Fox wrote: »

HTH.

What is this?

System

asdv wrote: »

I've had planning permission for works that included groundworks to two other (the only other) homes I've lived in during my life, both within 400m of a Roman Villa site, and both had no archaeology conditions. One is a listed building.

what's your point? i've worked on hundreds of planning applications, some have had archaeological watching briefs and some haven't, if there's no merit in having the brief it's very easy to get an archaeologist to tell that to the local authority

Fire_Fox

asdv wrote: »

What is this?

Hope That Helps.