Well i have had read of the planning documents you Linked Marc...(see, some of us care)
I have to say i agree with EH, who said clearly in the pre-planning stage that they would not support development on the site - based principley on the proximity to three SAMs. EH clearly state their opinion, based on existing knowledge, and that in their view there was no need for intrusive investigation at the site, as they already had sufficient information to conclude that they did not support the development.
Why did you advise your client that they should pay you to dig an evaluation trench anyway ? As the Heritage Officer says, this only demonstrated what they had already expected; ie medieval features were present, and no significance to the planning recommendation, as this was based principally on the proximity of the SAM...EH clearly stated this in pre-planning...
Your Conclusion for the Evaluation is (and i quote word-for-word, the entirety of the section)
"Archaeological features containing medieval material from the mid-late 12th century AD were found 0.8m below the general surface of the site. The site has been disturbed by a modern rubbish pit to a depth of 1 meter."
wells that's about as neither-here-no-there as it could get ,,,, > do you think you helped your Client?? > did they pay you, or was it pro-bono?(lol)
I find it interesting that you originally suggested that a watching brief would provide suitable mitigation > something EH and the CC obviously did not agree with > ... however, with a conclusion like that, you are right - it might as well have been.
BTW - top marks for the sieving and magnet work, although as part of unnecessary interventions without a research plan i am not sure of the point)
I don't know why you find it surprising that the application was turned down (as EH already said it should be from their perspective) - if you look, you will also see a whole bunch of objections from Neighbors, which may have had a more significant impact.
Can you tell us your reasoning for conducting the intrusive work?, despite not being asked for by Planning?..., and in light of existing objections to development from EH (were you even aware - you do not mention EH in your Heritage Statement or Evaluation Report?!) ....
[one day, maybe, back on TOPIC, pls MB , ffs..]
I have to say i agree with EH, who said clearly in the pre-planning stage that they would not support development on the site - based principley on the proximity to three SAMs. EH clearly state their opinion, based on existing knowledge, and that in their view there was no need for intrusive investigation at the site, as they already had sufficient information to conclude that they did not support the development.
Why did you advise your client that they should pay you to dig an evaluation trench anyway ? As the Heritage Officer says, this only demonstrated what they had already expected; ie medieval features were present, and no significance to the planning recommendation, as this was based principally on the proximity of the SAM...EH clearly stated this in pre-planning...
Your Conclusion for the Evaluation is (and i quote word-for-word, the entirety of the section)
"Archaeological features containing medieval material from the mid-late 12th century AD were found 0.8m below the general surface of the site. The site has been disturbed by a modern rubbish pit to a depth of 1 meter."
wells that's about as neither-here-no-there as it could get ,,,, > do you think you helped your Client?? > did they pay you, or was it pro-bono?(lol)
I find it interesting that you originally suggested that a watching brief would provide suitable mitigation > something EH and the CC obviously did not agree with > ... however, with a conclusion like that, you are right - it might as well have been.
BTW - top marks for the sieving and magnet work, although as part of unnecessary interventions without a research plan i am not sure of the point)
I don't know why you find it surprising that the application was turned down (as EH already said it should be from their perspective) - if you look, you will also see a whole bunch of objections from Neighbors, which may have had a more significant impact.
Can you tell us your reasoning for conducting the intrusive work?, despite not being asked for by Planning?..., and in light of existing objections to development from EH (were you even aware - you do not mention EH in your Heritage Statement or Evaluation Report?!) ....
[one day, maybe, back on TOPIC, pls MB , ffs..]