Planning condition archaeology watch order

asdv

teneighty wrote: »

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.

I would have thought "discharged" means complying and, as opposed to "removed", couldn't be much more different?

teneighty

OK, so if it is so obvious maybe you could explain to this thicky exactly how they got the condition "removed"?

ProbablyNotTheDriver

teneighty wrote: »

OK, so if it is so obvious maybe you could explain to this thicky exactly how they got the condition "removed"?

I’m not sure if it’s the same for Scotland but, in England, you can apply to vary a condition which includes removing the condition.

If you could demonstrate that the likelihood of finding items of historical value at the site is lower than the Local Planning Authority considered when attaching the condition then that might justify the variation of the condition- to either scale back its requirements or maybe even remove it in entirely. To be honest though, the historical record will have already been consulted so the time and cost associated with the work to vary this condition could end up more hassle than it’s worth. In my experience, a condition like this isn’t usually just attached arbritarily so I’d imagine the LPA have some good justification for it- you could always ask them what that is and go from there?

EachPenny

ProbablyNotTheDriver wrote: »

I’m not sure if it’s the same for Scotland but, in England, you can apply to vary a condition which includes removing the condition.

But that requires a formal application and payment of a not insignificant fee (assuming you mean a Section 73) which is something the poster in the discussion forum thread our OP linked to would have been aware of doing.

teneighty's point is that conditions aren't just "removed" by some kind of magic, which is what that person seems to believe given their speculation (e.g. "Hmmm, tricky one to answer") on whether it happened because the Council agreed the condition was no longer necessary, or that they decided it was invalid because the words "Area of Archaeological Importance" were capitalised.

If they made a Section 73 application then it wouldn't be a "tricky one to answer". :undecided

In this thread OP's case the same effect could be achieved (if it can be achieved at all) by appealing the LPA's decision, as per post #2.

jezzer_72

Planning Consultant (MRTPI) here. Do you mind posting the actual wording of the condition so I can take a look? Or send me a private message with the Authority and the reference number so I can download it?

From reading the thread it would seem that you have done no work to assess the archeological potential of the site. This isn’t really uncommon for small developments if you didn’t use a planning consultant. Therefore, the Council believe there is potential for remains and attached the condition for a watching brief... you should be glad that they didn’t ask for trenching or you’d be 50k down before you do anything at all.

I would suggest that you get a quote for a watching brief circa £2000. Reporting the finds should be included in the cost. If something is found that is significant the Archaeologist will report the findings and In consultation with the council will decide whether there is any merit in removing what has been found or leaving it in place. If they find a Roman fort for example, it won’t be removed but you might have to do more excavation and recording and then mitigation. If you find a Saxon Horde it will be removed and further excavation may be required.

The fact that it is just a watching brief means there is only a small possibility of Archaeological interest.

No point appealing the condition unless you can argue the condition doesn’t pass the test of applying conditions contained in the NPPF.

ProbablyNotTheDriver

EachPenny wrote: »

But that requires a formal application and payment of a not insignificant fee (assuming you mean a Section 73) which is something the poster in the discussion forum thread our OP linked to would have been aware of doing.

teneighty's point is that conditions aren't just "removed" by some kind of magic, which is what that person seems to believe given their speculation (e.g. "Hmmm, tricky one to answer") on whether it happened because the Council agreed the condition was no longer necessary, or that they decided it was invalid because the words "Area of Archaeological Importance" were capitalised.

If they made a Section 73 application then it wouldn't be a "tricky one to answer". :undecided

In this thread OP's case the same effect could be achieved (if it can be achieved at all) by appealing the LPA's decision, as per post #2.

Yes, the formal way to remove a condition would be either through an application to vary the condition or to appeal it. The Planning Inspectorate generally don’t turn things around very quickly. OP could apply for the condition to be removed and appeal it at the same time if they wanted to go that way.

I see what you mean with the linked thread- it doesn’t sound as though they went through that process. If development is carried out that is in breach of a planning condition then it potentially becomes an enforcement issue. At that point, the LPA could still take the view that it wouldn’t be expedient to take enforcement action- especially if the condition was attached in error as seems to be the case in the linked thread. That could have just been agreed with the linked OP and their LPA.

jezzer_72

I would assume that was the case tbh. The council just agreed they wouldn’t enforce against the breach of condition. The Condition still remained.

asdv

The planning authority have confirmed that I can apply to have conditions removed.


I am considering applying to have the archaeology watch order condition removed on the basis that the ground has already been dug for the exisitng drains serving the house, and has also has been disturbed extensively by ploughing and by the laying of field drainage systems. Much of the plot was part of a large arable field before it was fenced off for sale with building.

EachPenny

asdv wrote: »

I am considering applying to have the archaeology watch order condition removed on the basis that the ground has already been dug for the exisitng drains serving the house, and has also has been disturbed extensively by ploughing and by the laying of field drainage systems. Much of the plot was part of a large arable field before it was fenced off for sale with building.

Ploughing would only affect the top 8 to 10 inches or so, and wouldn't be significant enough to affect any interesting archeology below. Likewise, trenches for drainage are narrow features which don't cause a great deal of disturbance... a trench could have passed inches away from from some Roman feature which is still there waiting to be found.

You would be pushing it to claim that amounted to the land being "extensively disturbed".

The case in the external thread you linked to sounds like an urban area (reference to a 'city centre' some distance away) in which you would expect far more disturbance over time than in a rural area.