Planning condition archaeology watch order

parking_question_chap

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! 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:

An archaeologist will have been consulted on the application already, hence the condition.

asdv

the_r_sole wrote: »

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

I wondered why archaeology conditions are more often than not NOT placed when there are existing finds nearby. Seems very arbitrary.

asdv

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

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" ...

Digging the trenches is not my choice, it is something the authorities require. I am not permitted to use, never mind enjoy, the house without first doing so.

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!

The decision to place the archaeology order is made by the local government chief archaelogist, from a desktop study (looking at a map). The chances of finding a more senior archaeologist with more clout to go against this decision and at the same time take work away from the local archaeologist, would seem to be zero.

asdv

What is all the more galling, but admittedly not relevant here, is that beyond my boundary and just 3 metres from where 'my' archaeology order is in place on a 50x50m parcel of land that has already been dug for drains once, the landowner (of the surrounding 3000 acres) digs ditches, installs field drains, extracts gravel for building work and track repairs etc. with apparent total freedom.

EachPenny

asdv wrote: »

Digging the trenches is not my choice, it is something the authorities require. I am not permitted to use, never mind enjoy, the house without first doing so.

Are they preventing you from having a compost toilet and rainwater harvesting?

asdv wrote: »

The decision to place the archaeology order is made by the local government chief archaelogist, from a desktop study (looking at a map). The chances of finding a more senior archaeologist with more clout to go against this decision and at the same time take work away from the local archaeologist, would seem to be zero.

A desktop study can involve a lot more than just looking at a map. There will be records of previous finds in the area, and often the most useful source can be aerial photographs taken in dry weather when features below ground level can impact on plants growing on the surface:-
https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/news/hot-dry-summer-reveals-hidden-archaeological-sites/

I do agree that it is unlikely you will find someone with sufficient 'clout' to get a condition like this entirely removed. Unless the council's reasoning is utterly illogical, your best strategy is to work with it and seek to minimise the impact and cost.

asdv wrote: »

What is all the more galling, but admittedly not relevant here, is that beyond my boundary and just 3 metres from where 'my' archaeology order is in place on a 50x50m parcel of land that has already been dug for drains once, the landowner (of the surrounding 3000 acres) digs ditches, installs field drains, extracts gravel for building work and track repairs etc. with apparent total freedom.

What you don't appear to know is why your site is considered important. I suspect from what you've said that it is more likely to be industrial (i.e. farming) archaeology rather than anything more exotic. In which case it would be entirely logical that they were interested in a small area (perhaps the farmstead), rather than all the thousands of acres of surrounding land. It is also possible that work on the surrounding land might have been carried out before the council's policy changed.

asdv

EachPenny wrote: »

Are they preventing you from having a compost toilet and rainwater harvesting?

That was the original plan but was abandoned due to requirement by Public Health dept to store vast amounts of rainwater - in order that occupants can continue using vast amounts of water (1200L/day for a 3 bed house) through a prolonged drought. In any case new drains would still have had to be dug for rain overflow and grey water.


The council archaeologist says the site is in an area of "some archaeological sensitivity" with sites and finds of prehistoric and medieval date. Farm buildings are 100m away. It could have been a settlement for some time.

The farm own a digger and use it freely all the time. Farmers are are not subject to all the same laws as the rest of us.

EachPenny

asdv wrote: »

The farm own a digger and use it freely all the time. Farmers are are not subject to all the same laws as the rest of us.

I believe you'll find they are subject to the same laws, in fact many additional ones you may not have heard of. The difference is in the way some planning law treats certain agricultural operations in comparison to domestic developments.

But given that the plot you are talking about "is rural, isolated" and you seem to have a bit of a spiky attitude when it comes to your farming neighbours, then are you sure that developing on this plot is the right thing to do? (taking the planning conditions into account as well).

I'm not sure what experience you have of country life, but in mine being friends with your neighbours (even the farming ones) is essential for when things go wrong. If you already don't like the neighbours, then perhaps the best thing to do is to sell up before ploughing any more money into the project?

asdv

EachPenny wrote: »

I believe you'll find they are subject to the same laws,

Their Permitted Development Rights are different. Under them they can build buildings, convert buildings into homes, carry out excavations and engineering operations needed for agricultural purposes (eg. ditches, drains).

I have lived and worked in the countryside most of my life and I am on very good terms with the neighbours. Intensive unsustainable farming in general, the harm it does to public health and the billions of £s of public money spent to support it annoys me though.

Thank you for trying to help but I posted here because I am in a difficult financial position, caught out by a planning law few people have ever heard of and that should be better known about, especially by the kind of folk like me who inhabit these forums because they have limited means.

EachPenny

asdv wrote: »

Their Permitted Development Rights are different. Under them they can build buildings, convert buildings into homes, carry out excavations and engineering operations needed for agricultural purposes (eg. ditches, drains).

Farmers are still subject to the same laws though. PD rights vary according to existing land use and have been considered appropriate by Parliament.

PD rights allow householders to build buildings on a scale appropriate to their dwelling and for ancillary purposes. The rights to build buildings applicable to agricultural land are analogous to those for domestic dwellings (and not without size and location restrictions).

Are you sure about the conversion of farm buildings into dwellings? I'm not familiar with planning law in Scotland, but in England it would be a change of use and not permitted development.

Also, all permitted development rights are subject to the Local Planning Authority considering them appropriate. If, for example, the land is of archeological interest then the LPA can make an Article 4 Direction removing the permitted development rights.

So if you feel you are being unfairly treated in comparison to the adjacent landowners, then you could ask the Council why they haven't issued an Article 4 direction. (assuming they haven't)