+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Access conditions (/showthread.php?tid=1178)
Pages:
1
2
Access conditions - beamo - 30th October 2008
A DBA regarding a proposed development site within a former walled medieval market town found no evidence that the site had been substantially disturbed in the post-medieval/modern periods.
I advised the client that it would be appropriate to carry out an evaluation prior to submission of the application. I recommended a programme of trial trenching as the current ground conditions and land use seemed to rule out anything else.
However the planning advisor to the LPA has ruled out evaluation and has instead requested that the LPA put a condition on any planning consent requiring that the developer allow access for an appropriate archaeologist to visit the site during construction and make observations.
To me this looks like the old pre-PPG16 'access condition ' - it does not force the developer to employ an archaeologist to carry out a watching brief, it merely ensures that if an 'appropriate archaeologist' (i.e. the countie mountie or one of his team) happens to be passing the site during groundwork operations then they will be allowed in to observe what is happening (at no cost to the developer).
I haven't seen an access condition for several years now - the ones that were kicking around post-PPG16 tended to be attached to old s106 agreements for long-standing developments consented pre-PPG16.
The curator's reasoning for not having any evaluation is that he has asked for evaluations on similar sites nearby within the walled town, and none of them have ever produced anything remotely interesting, therefore he cannot justify requesting anthing more in this part of the town.
My response is 1) the location of the site within a walled medieval town, and not demonstrably disturbed, is sufficient justification for evaluation, and 2) at least one of the previous evaluations was undertaken under the supervision of an individual that I would not trust to tie their own bootlaces never mind run an archaeological project successfully.
Has anyone else had any recent experience of an 'access condition' rather than one based on the model condition in PPG16?
Beamo
Access conditions - Unitof1 - 30th October 2008
what was recommended in the dba?
For what its worth I dont think curators should be involved in any pre determination work, it turns archaeologists into consultants trying to second guess their desisions. Presumably when the curator went for the post determination I might drop in clause if I am not at a meeting or on a site visit or on holiday, it made your recomendations to the client look like you where trying to rip them off for all they have got. Thats why it has to be in the dba but.........I suspect that you will find its conclusions full of consultant speak.
I have got a one at the moment where the curator issued a brief for a dba and for the evaluation at the same time. As far as I am concerned its fun time.
Access conditions - beamo - 30th October 2008
Uo1
Nothing was recommended in the DBA.
I am firmly of the belief that a DBA is what it says on the tin - an assessment of the known and potential baseline position. As such it represents the starting position for further discussions with client/curator on the appropriate way forward.
When I commission a DBA from a contractor I specifically request that they do not make any recommendations for further work in that document, or any assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed development. This particular DBA was written by myself, but as I am a consultant then you may be right in assuming that it was full of consultant-speak.
I am considering advising the client that the 'access condition' carries too much risk, and that an evaluation would be a better strategy in terms of risk management.
To get briefs for a DBA and an evaluation on the same site at the same time does seem a bit odd - surely the results of the DBA will inform the brief for the evaluation? But hey what do I know - I'm just a consultant.
Beamo
Access conditions - voice of reason - 30th October 2008
We have had clients with these conditions, even very recently - usually either a planning officer who hasn't caught up (or worse, won't catch up)with the modern world, or the curator doesn't have a direct enough link into planning process to review conditions, or more disturbingly in a couple of cases, actually agreed by the curator as appropriate.
Put bluntly, advice to clients would be - that's fine, not your responibility to provide or pay as the condition doesn't say that. We have had 'responsible' clients (larger companies) who have gone to pay for us to do WB, but under no obligation as LPA has cocked up. Issues obviously come when you actually find something in WB as to who is going to pay for that. Obviously other clients (smaller companies and householders) exercise their legitimate right to give chance to LPA to nominate their authorised person and then when nothing happens, they can quite legitimately carry on regardless and build.
The issue of not evlauting is another can of worms but it is their professional decision and I would say not for client's representative to talk them out of it, except if client's interest would be harmed by risk of discovery of significant remains in WB, with programme and cost implications. If however there is only the 'access'condition, then client has no risk.
Access conditions - Unitof1 - 30th October 2008
Beamo live by the: specifically request that they (sorry pathetic archaeologists taking what they can hoping for more crumbs later) do not make any recommendations, die by the access condition dribble of the curatorsâ¦.
Sounds like the archaeologist want to make recommendations but you want let themâ¦
When you say
Quote:quote: My response is 1) the location of the site within a walled medieval town, and not demonstrably disturbed, is sufficient justification for evaluation, and 2) at least one of the previous evaluations was undertaken under the supervision of an individual that I would not trust to tie their own bootlaces never mind run an archaeological project successfully.in which document did you put this, surely it has to go in the dba and if you had reiterated it thought the conclusion which should have been a conclusion in response to a set of aims and purposed of the document. Possibly you also request that the snivelling dba writers make their aim purpose to collate the known archaeology so that they can conclude we have collated the known archaeology.
There is no way that you are going to convince the client that the 'access condition' carries too much risk, and that an evaluation would be a better strategy in terms of risk management. I am surprised they still need you around.
Unless what kind of client is this dimâ¦and you have got the curator going around posing .I donât think its private client
Access conditions - historic building - 31st October 2008
The access condition sometimes rears its ugly head on appeal decisions. My approach is to tell the developer to regard the access condition as the same as the PPG16 condition. Obviously, despite the entire crapness of the condition it has been issued for a consent since PPG16 which established the need for developers to pay for archaeology and provides a policy basis for all work for the last 18 years.
Planning permissions are issued from a database system which contains a number of standard conditions. Rather disturbingly these things often have early conditions still included on them.
Access conditions - BAJR Host - 31st October 2008
I would also contact ALGAO with these concerns, as this is such a fluffy 'condition' as to be almost unworkable. Significant problems could be stored up for the developer, in the event of archaeology being uncovered. They would indeed be in their rights to keep digging.. not even having to call an archaeologist.. its up to the archaeologist to be there -
I would ask for clarification on the following
an appropriate archaeologist (Define) to visit the site during construction (Define safety aspect) and make observations (DEFINE observation? visual only? written? photographic? etc). If none of these are defined, the client could be liable to any interpretation...... there is no talk of contracting... but then there is also no talk of not contracting either. A dangerous and out-dated condition... seen them myself when I was in that position... and had a barely civil conversation with planning.!
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Access conditions - Unitof1 - 31st October 2008
Is it a bird dont be absurd its an information note
Informative notes: 1) If anything is found of an archaeological nature when excavating the foundations, the find should be reported to County Council Conservation Services immediately. (Tel. No. â¦â¦â¦..).
A very common little stocking filler round my way
Access conditions - 1man1desk - 31st October 2008
I do occasionally come across 'access conditions', but I always think they are wrong and outdated. I don't see how they can impose any risk on the developer; all the developer has to do is let an archaeologist sent by someone else in through the gate - whatever is found, there is no obligation to pay for anything or to stop work.
In relation to whether or not there should be a mitigation recommendation in the DBA, well that is a case of horses-for-courses and careful definition of terms.
Ultimately, you are looking to provide 3 separate things, which can be defined in Environmental Impact Assessment terminology:
- define the archaeological resource ('baseline data');
- define the impact of the development and assess its significance ('impact assessment');
- identify appropriate mitigation works.
You can also go on to a fourth step, which is to re-assess the significance of the impact taking the mitigation into account ('residual impact').
Now, you can commission all of those as a single package, and that would be a full DBA.
However, there is no good reason why an archaeological consultant could not commission someone else to do a desk-based survey (DBS) that would define the baseline, but do the assessment of impact themselves. After all, the DBS may only be the first step in identifying baseline, potentially followed by field surveys and trial trenching, for instance. The consultant may also have the opportunity to use the baseline data to secure changes in design that would reduce the impact. So, the final assessment of impact might take into account the DBS, evaluation results and design changes.
Mitigation recommendations come after impact assessment, and should always be based on consultation with the curator that takes the results of the impact assessment into account.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Access conditions - beamo - 31st October 2008
Thanks everyone - it's useful to find out that these types of condition could be issued from a database system which contains a number of standard conditions.
I am still unhappy with the condition, and agree with Mr Hosty that it is very fluffy.
Uo1 - I will still work on the client to go for an evaluation here, even if the curator doesn't request one. It is nothing to do with saving money by not going through with the evaluation - if the client goes ahead with the access condition, then some interested local party may observe the destruction of archaeological remains through the hoarding and raise a bit of an outcry. The resultant loss of local goodwill may cost the client far more than the cost of an evaluation.
Beamo