BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Developer charged with breach pf conditions after failure to complete archaeology
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/c...on-5722721

Developers who built the council HQ building are in breach of a planning condition for not completing the archaeological work.
Cheshire West and Chester Council has issued a breach of condition notice against Swansea-based Liberty Properties Ltd for failing to produce a full report for publication in an academic journal and failing to deposit the archive at the Grosvenor Museum within three years of completion of the fieldwork.

Archaeologists carried out the dig prior to construction of the council offices, luxury apartments and Abode hotel in the largest excavation to have taken place in Chester in more than 30 years.

Traces of the medieval Benedictine nunnery and cemetery were also revealed along with more than 100 skeletons.


The company is warned that it faces prosecution in the magistrates court and a fine if fails to complete the post-excavation programme within two years of the notice being issued.
So the council who occupy the building are issuing the breach of condition for non completion of the archaeological work. :face-approve:
Though one wonders with all that important archaeology (see main article) how it got built there in the first place.
Is that a fine of £1000? The post-ex budget is surely going to be much, much more than that? It's hardly a deterrent, and if I was a hard-nosed business woman rather than an archaeologist I'd take the prosecution and fine as it's cheaper than discharging the condition! (Even though it's hardly ethical!) Great news that a notice has been issued but it simply doesn't sound like it has any real possibility of enforcement, and what message does it send out about archaeological planning conditions?

I'm fascinated though that it's the developer that has legal liability here as I would have thought part of the contract with the archaeological contractor would have been the production of a report, and I would have assumed in that case they would have been blaming the archaeological sub-contractor and passing on legal liability? I do know that it's not uncommon for post-ex budgets to have separate tendering etc. Lots of questions from the archaeological side of things as the archive, finds (inc skeles) etc must be in storage somewhere? As the human remains came from a known Christian burial context, I thought most licenses from the Ministry of Justice now stipulated where the remains needed to be re-interred and gave a time frame? However. even if we aren't paid huge wages, we're still professionals and can't do the work for free if there's no contract.... so what do you do here as a contractor? Especially if they take the fine?
[B][SIZE=3]http://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk...version=-1

People might be interested in the enforcement notice and the original project design for excavation and post-ex.....

[/B]
[/SIZE]
ecmgardner Wrote:I'm fascinated though that it's the developer that has legal liability here as I would have thought part of the contract with the archaeological contractor would have been the production of a report, and I would have assumed in that case they would have been blaming the archaeological sub-contractor and passing on legal liability?

Seeing as the Developer sought and secured the Consent, it is they who are responsible for any breaches of the Conditions. However, I'm sure they will want to seek separate action against their archaeological contractor if this is due to a failure by said archaeologists to complete their contractual obligations. (And I have no idea about the true details of this case - for all I know this could be a mere "shot across the bows" formality, and the PX might be well in hand...) But I agree the £1000 penalty seems aweful cheap!
Thanks for clarifying barkingdigger :face-approve:
In my experience developers are much more quick to commission work needed before construction can commence than to deal with post-ex work once the ticking clock is done, and as a result it may well be in this case that the contractor is twiddling its thumbs awaiting authorisiation to proceed.
ecmgardner Wrote:Is that a fine of £1000? The post-ex budget is surely going to be much, much more than that? It's hardly a deterrent, and if I was a hard-nosed business woman rather than an archaeologist I'd take the prosecution and fine as it's cheaper than discharging the condition!

I understand that the fine for non-compliance has to be paid and then the condition still has to be complied with as well. An unscrupulous developer near here asked the same question, obviously with the intent of just paying the cheaper fine, but was told this would be in addition to post-ex costs
Silly question but what if they don't pay the fine and don't do the post ex does someone end up in jail or does every one just forget about it?
I am guessing that the penalty for non compliance of a planning condition could result in demolition of the building.....
Pages: 1 2 3