Archaeological Survey

[Edward]

This is purely hypothetical.

I own a share in a small piece of land (about an acre) and we co- owners are thinking of applying for planning permission. We've been told that, if planning is permitted, we would be required to undertake an archaeological survey.

As I understand it, and as things stand at the moment, there is no law that says I cannot hire a digger and just dig the site up prior to the application being submitted (or accepted). Would this be legal, and would it obviate the requirement to carry out the archaeological assessment? I _know_ it would be an act of inexcusable vandalism - I'm merely interested in the legality.

Thanks

Edward

[The Natural Philosopher]

AFAIK and this came up when talking to various builders and planning people, the general opinion was that if you do find something, and the archaeologists get to hear, they can shut you down for years while the burrow and mutter.

My advice would be to diog a test trench right across the site, and if nothing shows up, present that as evidence that there is nothing there, and if something does, make a moral ethical and commercial decision as to what the heck to do next.

ruined archaeology is not worth actually re-digging. I dont think its illegal to wreck a site: Only to wreck it AFTER the archaeolgists have got a court order..or something like that.

[Adrian Brentnall]

We had a similar situation back at the last house in Suffolk. They'd found Roman remains next-door - so when we applied to erect an extension to the garage, the County Archaeologists were very interested.

What they wanted to do was to be present when the footings were being dug - though there was always the question of 'what if they identified something ?'.

In the end we built a timber extension sitting on paving slabs - so didn't disturb any archaeology, didn;t need any building regs & didn't involve the archaeologists - though that might not work in your case

Adrian

[Andrew Mawson]

undertake

Tell "Time Team" that you keep finding loads of Roman / Stone Age Bronze Age artifacts, and they'll come down and do a resistance survey - find nothing and go off in a huff : BUT you then have the survey

AWEM

[harry]

A friend of mine had a house near a medieval church. He wanted to put up a substantial garage. When he applied for planning permission he was told there would need to be a archeological dig (they thought there might be corpses there) The best bit was, he would have to pay for it!!!!! =A320,000 they wanted. Needless to say he abandoned the idea.

[Tim Lamb]

In message , Adrian Brentnall writes

We have a similar situation here. An area of flood plain where there is evidence of cress production is zoned as being of *archaeological interest*.

My understanding is that, prior to works commencing, we are required to notify the local museum.

What about building on piles? Houses on a nearby contaminated chemical site were built this way. The *borer* appeared to create the holes for concrete back fill without actually removing any soil. The rest of the foundation was beam and block.

regards

[Steve Walker]

With the added bonus that a couple of carefully pre-positioned, but uninteresting artefacts could get your foundation trenches dug too ;)

SteveW

[Andy Champ]

Obviously I've missed something.

This is a flood plain, that used to be covered in ponds, and you want to build on it? Isn't there just the teeniest risk of damp feet?

Andy

[Tony Bryer]

IANAL but wouldn't this constitute starting work without planning permission. In the reverse situation - having a planning permission that is about to expire - digging a trench is IIRC deemed to be starting work.

[Bob Eager]

Not if he was just gardening! .-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

I dont think digging a trench for ahem 'drainage purposes' requires planning permission. Or indeed for just landscaping the gardemn

"I wanted to build a replica of the WWI Ypres Salient, M'lud"

[harry]

They won't let you dig down more than a spades depth. Officially that is. How would they find out unless you have busybody nieghbours?

[Tim Lamb]

I may have overstated the word *similar*.

In our case the works might be a backwater dug to improve the coarse fishery.

Housing has of course been constructed on land of a similar nature but within the *development envelope*.

regards

[Chris J Dixon]

I have noticed that, in some local planning applications, they include a "desktop survey", which effectively serves to demonstrate that there it is unlikely to be anything of significant architectural interest.

I have no idea if this would help in your case, be more acceptable (cost, delay etc.) than actual digging, or if you have actually been told, by someone in a position to do so authoritatively, that existing information means that digging would be mandatory.

Chris

[Andrew May]

Does that make double digging illegal? That's a relief.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Rubbish. ive got gateposts posts in that are thee spades depth and you can't plant a decent tree with less that tow spades depth.

And the pond is as deep as a 3 ton digger can scoop..

[Chris J Dixon]

I meant, of course, "archaeological interest".

[Jules Richardson]

Depth relative to what? Can't you dig down a spade's depth, declare that "ground level" at that point, then dig down another spade's depth etc.?

TNP's right - I mean, most gate or fence posts should be at least a couple of feet down...

cheers

Jules

[rbel]

Have a word with your local HER office

[unitof1]

I am a self employed archaeologist. The truth is the archaeology belongs to the landowner. I think that its totally barmy that the planning system can dictate what you do to your archaeology once you get caught in the system. Watch any timeteam and all they do is ask the landowners permission and so long as its not an ancient scheduled monument site anybody can dig away so long as they don=92t get involved in mineral extraction or some environmental pollution. So dig it up, I bet you could get a load of local volunteers to help you.

Almost all archaeologists now depend on development work as you have to pay. Get as many quotes as you can but quite often there are local cartels in operation.

One of the things that I have found is that landowners are not want to argue against archaeological conditions put on their planning applications and unfortunately archaeologists are then seen as part of a tax on your developments. Only once have a client (mad) who asked me to try and get the condition removed which I said I would for a very nominal fee and the condition was removed but the client (hence mad) did not pay me.