Planning condition archaeology watch order

System

there's no need to over complicate this:
Speak to a local archaeologist, or one that works in the area regularly - ask them about the likelihood of finding anything on the site and for a service proposal for satisfying the planning condition.
This is the cheapest and easiest route to getting this sorted!

If you don't have the budget to address this planning condition I would suggest that you sell the site on as it won't be the only unknown you come across.
Just to clarify a few things, a consultant archaeologist will have looked at the red line on the planning application and found that it is in an area where there might be some interest - they have asked for a watching brief so that any digging is observed in case there is anything interesting dug up.
They have not decided that there will definitely be something in that exact location or carried out a detailed survey, they have purely requested a report. Similar to a flood risk assessment there are areas identified as requiring consultation, the archaeologist will be able to tell you much much more than anyone on the internet.
If the budget won't stretch to an archaeologist, you're not going to manage to fund the legal challenge to the planning system!!

asdv

EachPenny wrote: »

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

If we all agreed with what Parliament considered appropriate then we would not need the political processes we enjoy in this country.

EachPenny wrote: »

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.

PM Cameron changed it a few years ago:

Planning permission for farms: Permitted development - GOV.UK

EachPenny wrote: »

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.

Correct.

EachPenny wrote: »

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)

They haven't issued an Article 4 direction because they mostly have no idea what farmers are doing on the land with diggers and I am not going to fall out with my neighbour by shopping them.

asdv

the_r_sole wrote: »

there's no need to over complicate this:
Speak to a local archaeologist, or one that works in the area regularly - ask them about the likelihood of finding anything on the site and for a service proposal for satisfying the planning condition.
This is the cheapest and easiest route to getting this sorted!

Already done all that and as I explained in my 2nd post the costs are estimated at from £1,200 - 2,200 if nothing found, up to any figure you like.

the_r_sole wrote: »

If you don't have the budget to address this planning condition I would suggest that you sell the site on as it won't be the only unknown you come across.

As already explained in an earlier post, this option has been considered and discounted.

the_r_sole wrote: »

Just to clarify a few things, a consultant archaeologist will have looked at the red line on the planning application and found that it is in an area where there might be some interest - they have asked for a watching brief so that any digging is observed in case there is anything interesting dug up.
They have not decided that there will definitely be something in that exact location or carried out a detailed survey, they have purely requested a report.

I have spoken with the council archaeologist to clarify the watch order details and my liability as the result of the order and it is certainly not just a report (although if I am lucky, then it could be).

If the budget won't stretch to an archaeologist, you're not going to manage to fund the legal challenge to the planning system!!

This comment seems too obvious a point for me to understand why you make it.

System

Now I remember why I stopped posting on here!

asdv

the_r_sole wrote: »

Now I remember why I stopped posting on here!

Why? Did I say something to offend? Sorry if I did. It is not meant.

gazapc

Personally, I'm glad they implement these sort of conditions. In the off chance there was anything on site then I wouldn't want it being destroyed. These sort of conditions are not unusual and pre-planning advice is unfortunately non-binding.

I don't know what your overall renovation budget is but if a bill of just a few thousand (as you imply) pushes the project to be unaffordable I would be worried about what other contingencies are not covered.

I believe the previous poster who referred to selling up was referring to selling now rather than once works had been started. Selling a non-commenced project with a condition like this would be very different to selling a project where something confirmed had been found.

asdv

For anyone looking for help with this issue there is a very helpful thread, which ended with removal of the archaeology condition, here:
https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/topic/2393-archaeological-watching-brief/

teneighty

asdv wrote: »

For anyone looking for help with this issue there is a very helpful thread, which ended with removal of the archaeology condition, here:
https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/topic/2393-archaeological-watching-brief/

To be fair the poster in that forum didn't make it clear if the condition was removed or discharged. I suspect it was discharged.

asdv

The poster says "I managed to get this condition removed." and goes on to explain how. Why would they make all that up?

teneighty

Well I'm glad you understood it, it was clear as mud to me.

In England there is no legal mechanism to simply "remove" a condition unless you go to appeal and that appeal is upheld. That is why I said I suspected they got the condition discharged, there is a subtle difference. But as far as they are concerned the condition went away.