Whats in their briefs?

[Marc Berger]

if we get away from my BAJR museum plans and go back to the deliberations of the planning inspector we can see no mention of any brief or museum.

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/...d=13416164

The Inspector appears to have got information to come up with this pronouncement:

The evidence before me suggests that the remains may date back to the late Saxon – early medieval period, with the lesser possibility of prehistoric remnants. The former would potentially chart the settled development of the area. The parties have provided differing assessments of the significance of the remains, and I have taken into account the Council’s that this situation may have resulted from the more limited scope undertaken by the appellant’s initial evaluation.

The inspectors speculation gives the impression that the reasoning for the inspectors desicion might have been got from the evaluation report but the use of "suggest" and "lesser possibility" suggest to me more than likely it might have come from the Mountys contribution which says

Further to the previous pre-application discussions, a geophysical survey and evaluation excavation have been undertaken within the site. Although a copy of this report does not seem to have been submitted as part of this application (……SCCAU ref 1168). The evaluation trenching identified several features containing evidence for metal working and possibly dating to the Late Saxon period together with evidence likely to relate to documented 18th century repairs to the church.

Although i dont know where early medieval and prehistoric remains come from I suggest that the Council when it made its decision did not see the report but accepted the mounties instruction and so educated the counci went on to use the non specific reserved matters phraseology supplied by the mounties. It is impossible for any archaeologist or planning inspector to work out what work is required. In NPPF terms the condition does not appear to be precise.

Why the inspector does not comment on the actual phrasing of the condition suggests that they have some rule but for me what I most dont understand is the Reasons used in the conditions. Surly the reason should be the reasons used by the inspector

The evidence before me suggests that the remains may date back to the late Saxon – early medieval period, with the lesser possibility of prehistoric remnants. The former would potentially chart the settled development of the area

if reasons where stated like that in the decisions it might make sense of the term "plan making" in NPPF 141. Just what's the point of saying the reason is an out of date local plan?

I think a question here and something true about the respect for field archaeologists by the planning authorities is why didn’t the inspector talk to the archaeologist who undertook the evaluation or as the mounties like to call it for some odd reason “evaluation excavation.” and find out what they thought would be best. Personally I am all for excavation on what I can workout from this site and it appears to me that about fifty % of the watching briefs that I have ever done should have been excavations....