Developer-led scheduling?

[juamei]

Does anyone know or have an idea, how many discovered sites during developer led archaeology are scheduled?

Basically how many are actually saved and the development they are in the way of actually stops vs those which are recorded and then destroyed / preserved under buildings /roads etc.

How would we even go about finding such an answer?

[AlanS]

Just been discussing this with Mikki over lunch as it happens. My guess is very approximately none! Not sure how we'd validate that though as there's no real central HER to refer to. I suspect it'd be a question of checking individual areas...

[juamei]

Do you refer to the HERs as any discovered but destroyed sites would eventually find their way into the HERs?

I was wondering about an FOIA request to EH, CADW & Historic Scotland for all scheduling considerations vs actual schedulings, but that wouldn't be just developer-led...

[Sandy]

Sites discovered during development will rarely be scheduled because compensation is payable. If the site is discovered during pre-planning permission investigations the site may be scheduled as compensation would not be payable. As with any rule there are exceptions but these are all I believe historic. In the past the threat of scheduling has been employed to get developers to amend details of their development. I am aware of a few sites where scheduling has happened after planning permission has been granted but in most instances SMC will subsequently be granted for complete destruction. In a couple of cases compensation was paid, but relatively small amounts of money were involved. I think you are probably thinking of sites discovered during "expensive" projects where the budget would just not run to the levels of compensation that would be needed. As a rule of thumb sites exposed during development will not be scheduled although the information from the mitigation excavation might be used to safeguard what is left.

[juamei]

Sandy, would that be stated in an EH or CADW document somewhere? That scheduling is now primarily an economic concern when developer-led? Who would pay the compensation if a company employed by the developers found something which was scheduled and preserved?

[juamei]

We had this fairly good comment on the Monmouth story we put up:

Perhaps you should note that Huw Lewis is Welsh Government Minister with responsibility for Housing, Regeneration and Heritage.
http://wales.gov.uk/about/cabinet/cabin ... is?lang=en

I also note that Heritage comes before Housing in the alphabet so I presume that the minister’s order is significant.

Lewis is responsible for “Conserving and protecting the historic environment of Wales and promotion of heritage-led regeneration” as well as “The housing and housing-related activities of local authorities and housing associations, including housing management and the allocation of social and affordable housing” (I have reversed the order as they appear in his list).

Wondering what the comparative rates are for scheduling sites vs scheduling requests for each of CADW, EH and Historic Scotland (are they the statuary scottish body responsible?) Presumably we could find out using 3 FOI requets.

[Sandy]

Just back from a day trip to Devon and cannot think straight on this really important issue. I will try and give it some thought and respond on the various issues properly tomorrow. I cannot think of anywhwere where it is written down but can anyone think of an example of a site exposed during development that was scheduled and the development stopped?

[AlanS]

BTW, nice letter in BA this month Sandy - well done for getting that published!

[Sandy]

Thanks Alan. There is a whole load more in the pipeline!
Scheduling is discretionary. This is crucial and explains why sites that are clearly of national importance are not on the schedule. It means that it is possible to state that a site is of national importance but the the Secretary of State will not be adding the monument to the schedule. The Heritage Bill intended to rectify this situation but ......
Compensation would be payable by EH etc and because there is no budget it is inevitable that SMC would be granted. I suppose scheduling should be viewed as a management tool rather than as a means of preventing damage. I know this sounds daft but this is where I believe we are. The best example would be a barrow under plough at the time of scheduling. Ploughing can continue quite legally until the barrow is destroyed. Indeed there is evidence to support the contention that scheduling can sometimes lead to an increased pace of destruction. Scheduling is a management tool allowing EH etc to have a legal input into the management of a monument. It does not mean that EH etc can stop the site being damaged by neglect it just stops development without permission. SMC is often granted for destruction of archaeological deposits and features and sometimes entire sites. There is a whole can of worms here! As a first stage it might be useful for EH etc to confirm that they would not schedule archaeological remains uncovered during permitted development. If they claim they do an FOI asking for examples would then be very helpful. If they will not respond to a reasonable letter an FOI asking for details of sites saved from development as a result of scheduling should do the trick. Would make a really informative article.

[juamei]

Hi Sandy, sorry I've not got back to you, been laid low with child spread lurgy. But hopefully will be with it enough in a day or so to return to this conversation!