Is this fair??

[garybrun]

http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/farming/viewarticle.aspx?id=582963
Thoughts please.



Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[Sith]

Without any detail of the actual case, it's hard to tell and it probably also depends on how you define "fair".

Although this seems to have taken an age to pass through the planning system, I'm presuming that permission was eventually granted with conditions relating to archaeology (i.e. that the site was evaluated and that anything discovered was 'mitigated' (preserved in situ or by record)).

Now that something has been found on the site, he has the same choices as any other developer:

Cough up for the archaeology; or
Build it somewhere else.




D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

Your powers are weak, Curator

[1man1desk]

The wording of the article is a bit ambiguous - it reads as if planning permission was granted before the archaeological site was identified and the requirement for excavation imposed.

If that is so, then it is hard to see on what legal basis the requirement was imposed, and it could be seen as reasonable for the planning authority to contribute to the cost.

If not, then it is no different from any other development with an archaeological planning condition. The farmer does have the option to change the location, assuming he has enough land in an equally good position.

The farmer does complain that the lack of the shelter means that the sheep are 'poaching' and rutting the ground. However, presumably the land has been carrying sheep for many years - why is this a problem now if it hasn't been one before?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[historic building]

Yes he is developing the land as a developer he pays for the impact of his development.

If he does not want to pay for the evaluation he can move the shed he is a farmer; it is not a restricted urban site. As this is the Lake District and a national park there are likely to be considerable landscape issues relating to the placement of the shed so to that end it may be more limited, but this is not a big agricultural shed.

You do not suddenly find a 13th century vachery in Cumberland, they are very well documented and will have been present on the SMR – hence the references to 1260 which at the back of my mind I seem to remember an estate survey for parts of the county at this time. The curatorial archaeologist went to visit the site and confirmed the presence of earthworks. As little as you can tell from the article it does sound like a pre-determination evaluation that the applicant is refusing to do hence the holdup.

This sounds like something that happens very frequently when the planning officer responsible for the application leaves in the middle of its run and before they have completed the consultation. The phone rings and the antipodean accent starts 'Hello I have just inherited this site from former antipodean planner, it is beyond time and we are cleaning the backlog up. Any archaeology?' How many of us on the curatorial side of the fence have not had this happen – most days of the week. Sometimes the applicant is lucky, sometimes not.

In this case, from the comments at the end of the article, it seems that the planning committee thought that it was an uncontroversial application so passed it to the delegated officer in August and the decision has only just been issued or the applicant has been informed about the need for an evaluation. My guess is that the applicant has been moaning away for a few months hoping to browbeat the planner and has only just gone to the paper to moan about the cost (10 grand is a pretty cheap evaluation) and delay – which is probably a result of not doing the evaluation. The fool should have appealed against non-determination much earlier – if he had a case – and may have got away without the condition or archaeological recommendation.

Well done to the planner and the curatorial archaeologist for catching this one.

[voice of reason]

Something confused here as Application 7/2007/2116, which appears to be the subject of this article has appaprently not been determined yet according to LDNPA website. Also not entirely clear what the 10k figure refers to in terms of archaeological work.

So, if pre-determination, on site of known archaeological potenetial, paying for work is perfectly reasonable and normal.

Irrespective of that though, 10k is not a 'cheap evaluation'as HB suggests for a site of this size - 1235 square metres, even at 5% sample, would be 61.75 sq m of trenching. Bottom end of low thousands would be going rate for this, depending on complexity and logistics would be my guess.

Can we please come and bid for work in your area HB if 10k is a winning price for that amount of trenching?

[Sparky]

61.75 sq m of trenching is roughly equivalent to one 30x2 m trench. I would assume that VoR wouldn't charge 1.5K to 2.5K for one trench? Maybe at that rate this work might just cost 10K!

[BAJR Host]

I'm up for that too VoR I'll do 61.75 sq m of trenching for 5k... :) Only kidding... !

I fear that this is one of those.. stories that has more to it than meets the eye.

As said, the whole story is obviously not quite being told.... as a DC Archaeologist.. I find it implausible.. incredible and more than likely a miscontruing of the reality...

The farmer will feel hard done by... but then... its what every other person in the UK has to deal with every day when putting in an application... as one farmer said to me...
why do I have to evaluate my new silage pit...?

well... it is on the line of a Roman Road...

oh....!

Can you move it 50m that way?

No.

OK... if you can't, then you have to....

Who pays for it?

You do....

Oh!

So can you move it...

No...

Ok.............. then you have to evaluate...

(cost about a grand) for a trench (10x2) and they found nought... so all was well..

althopugh he had to spend an extra grand.. and they found nothing, he could have seen it as a waste.. but hey if anyone can say what's there before intrusive investigation... yer a better man than I !

The farmer was talked to, and the situation explained, options were given and a fair solution found... and he understood... and so, as he as unwilling to move it... paid the price... and although nothing was found, it menat that further work in that area was clear...

I would suspect an angry farmer, a zealous press...



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steven]

Hi All
Gary, do you think its fair?



Steven

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by Steven

Hi All
Gary, do you think its fair?



Steven

I'm not sure yet... that's why I asked the question.
There is more to this archaeology lark than meets the eye. :D



Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.