Like GnomeKing I've also read the application details. The comments of the district's archaeological advisor and those of Historic England (English Heritage as was) are freely available to view.
The EH advice seems clear, they responded at the pre-application stage to say that the principle of development here was not supported by them, but the applicant went forward with an application in any event. EH subsequently objected to the planning application on the basis that it would result in unjustified harm to the adjacent Scheduled Monument. There's nothing in the application documentation to suggest that EH haven't been entirely consistent in their advice.
The advice by the County Archaeological Officer seems to me a little more mixed in message, they are not saying that the principle of the development is unacceptable, merely that there isn't sufficient information for them to make an informed decision. They have said that additional assessment is required in order for them to make an informed decision, and that unless that information is forthcoming the application should be refused.
Having looked at the Heritage Statement, I'm afraid I would agree with the comments of EH. The Heritage Statement simply doesn't seem to be that good nor does it properly get to grips with the issues relating to the setting of the Scheduled Monument. In another thread there's is discussion about falling standards, but we don't do ourselves any favours as a profession by taking on work for which we don't have the necessary skills or experience to undertake. If you don't know how to produce a Heritage Statement, then perhaps the responsible thing is to tell your client that, not take their money and have a go?
I don't entirely agree with the comments made by the County Archaeological Officer. I think in this instance (despite the failings of the Heritage Statement) there is enough information to make an informed recommendation. I'm not sure what additional information that the archaeological officer thinks they need? Clearly EH felt they had enough information to recommend refusal and that seems an entirely justifiable position.
The application didn't go as an appeal, and it does seem worrying to me that you are happy to provide planning advice to clients, but don't seem to understand what stage of the planning process the case is at. There was a previous application that had been refused and appealed, but this was a new application. The officer recommendation was one for refusal, but the application was called in by a member for determination by the planning committee - not the same as an appeal. It is interesting that you say archaeology/heritage wasn't mentioned at the committee meeting as that's not what the published minutes say, which note that "Members noted... the fact that the site had important heritage assets and was not sustainable". If the published minutes are wrong that is a serious accusation...
It seems to me from the minutes that members accepted that the application was not acceptable on heritage grounds and was not sustainably located, therefore there was no need to debate these issues in detail. Members instead considered whether there were any positive benefits that would outweigh the reasons for refusal. Clearly they felt there weren't and therefore the application was refused on the grounds given in the officer report. All seems above board, no conspiracy here.
Did you charge for the Heritage Statement and evaluation? If so I must say I feel sorry for your client; they paid a "professional" to produce a Heritage Statement, and despite not knowing what a Heritage Statement should contain you went ahead and took the commission anyway. Then to make matters worse charged for an evaluation, when the guidance from the LPA's heritage advisors was that one wasn't needed? If I was your client I think I'd be asking for my money back...
The EH advice seems clear, they responded at the pre-application stage to say that the principle of development here was not supported by them, but the applicant went forward with an application in any event. EH subsequently objected to the planning application on the basis that it would result in unjustified harm to the adjacent Scheduled Monument. There's nothing in the application documentation to suggest that EH haven't been entirely consistent in their advice.
The advice by the County Archaeological Officer seems to me a little more mixed in message, they are not saying that the principle of the development is unacceptable, merely that there isn't sufficient information for them to make an informed decision. They have said that additional assessment is required in order for them to make an informed decision, and that unless that information is forthcoming the application should be refused.
Having looked at the Heritage Statement, I'm afraid I would agree with the comments of EH. The Heritage Statement simply doesn't seem to be that good nor does it properly get to grips with the issues relating to the setting of the Scheduled Monument. In another thread there's is discussion about falling standards, but we don't do ourselves any favours as a profession by taking on work for which we don't have the necessary skills or experience to undertake. If you don't know how to produce a Heritage Statement, then perhaps the responsible thing is to tell your client that, not take their money and have a go?
I don't entirely agree with the comments made by the County Archaeological Officer. I think in this instance (despite the failings of the Heritage Statement) there is enough information to make an informed recommendation. I'm not sure what additional information that the archaeological officer thinks they need? Clearly EH felt they had enough information to recommend refusal and that seems an entirely justifiable position.
Marc Berger Wrote:HI think that I have mentioned that this application went as an appeal to the planning committee. Alarmed with my histerical statement and field evaluation, l went to the party as well and I can assure you that not a single mention was made of the heritage/archaeology issues by the committee so I am still quite interested in the final decision notice which said:
Quote:2. The application is not supported by an appropriate evaluation of heritage
impact, would have unacceptable harmful impact on the setting of a
significant nearby heritage asset and risks unacceptable harm to the
archaeological record. This would be contrary to Paragraph 128 of the
National Planning Policy Framework.
The application didn't go as an appeal, and it does seem worrying to me that you are happy to provide planning advice to clients, but don't seem to understand what stage of the planning process the case is at. There was a previous application that had been refused and appealed, but this was a new application. The officer recommendation was one for refusal, but the application was called in by a member for determination by the planning committee - not the same as an appeal. It is interesting that you say archaeology/heritage wasn't mentioned at the committee meeting as that's not what the published minutes say, which note that "Members noted... the fact that the site had important heritage assets and was not sustainable". If the published minutes are wrong that is a serious accusation...
It seems to me from the minutes that members accepted that the application was not acceptable on heritage grounds and was not sustainably located, therefore there was no need to debate these issues in detail. Members instead considered whether there were any positive benefits that would outweigh the reasons for refusal. Clearly they felt there weren't and therefore the application was refused on the grounds given in the officer report. All seems above board, no conspiracy here.
Did you charge for the Heritage Statement and evaluation? If so I must say I feel sorry for your client; they paid a "professional" to produce a Heritage Statement, and despite not knowing what a Heritage Statement should contain you went ahead and took the commission anyway. Then to make matters worse charged for an evaluation, when the guidance from the LPA's heritage advisors was that one wasn't needed? If I was your client I think I'd be asking for my money back...