Results of archaeological assessment of sites DBH002 and BH030

Summary

The requester sought archaeological assessment and geophysical survey results for sites DBH002 and BH030, but Manx National Heritage withheld the information for DBH002 citing commercial confidentiality and confirmed no formal investigation exists for BH030.

Key Facts

• Site DBH002 has known archaeological sites and artefacts identified in the past, including features on the 1860s Ordnance Survey.
• A developer voluntarily undertook a detailed archaeological assessment and geophysical survey for site DBH002.
• The results of the DBH002 survey are considered commercially confidential pending a detailed planning application.
• No formal investigations have been conducted on site BH030, though artefacts were found on nearby land.
• Manx National Heritage recommends developers undertake assessments under Environment Policy 41 of the Strategic Plan.

Data Disclosed

• DBH002
• BH030
• 1860s
• 2019-10-03
• 2019-10-31
• 326
• DC11
• Environment Policy 41
• 603

Exemptions Cited

• Commercially confidential

Original Request

The results of the archaeological assessment and the geophysical survey of sites DBH002 and BH030 identified in the Draft Area Plan for the East. Email correspondence below reveals that even though the assessment and the survey were undertaken privately by Hartford Homes, the results are know to Manx National Heritage. Hartford Homes have promised but not provided them to the inquiry into the Draft Area Plan for the East. Alternatively, an independent assessment and survey should be commissioned - how can local residents initiate it? Advocate for at least 326 local residents has asked to show the sites of archaeological interest on the maps of sites DBH002 and BH030. Their existence was identified as a constraint on rezoning in the assessment report of Hollie Bryant, the Principal Planner, published at https://www.gov.im/media/1355503/dbh002-site-assessment-draft-february-2017.pdf. On 3 Oct 2019, at 15:05, Johnson, Andrew (MNH) (Andrew.Johnson@mnh.im) wrote: Dear ### Thank you for you inquiry earlier. I can comment as follows: BH030 Archaeological artefacts have been found on land close to this site as a result of development and casual discoveries. This would have triggered the Red response under DC11 in the Site Assessment Framework. There have been no formal investigations on the site itself, which is common on the Isle of Man. Under such circumstances my professional recommendation, should the land be developed, would be that the developer should undertake an archaeological assessment (in line with Environment Policy 41 of the Strategic Plan). This could take the form of a 'desk-based assessment' of known sites and finds in the surrounding area, and might, on the basis of the weight of evidence already found, be followed by more detailed investigation of the site, ahead of finalising a detailed planning application. This allows you, or your client, to minimise the risk of archaeological remains holding up construction, or to design the forma of development in such a way as to avoid the archaeology if possible. DBH002 Archaeological sites and artefacts have been identified in the past on this site. Some of these features are shown on the first Ordnance Survey, undertaken and published in the 1860s; the site is also very close to the centre of the medieval parish, focussed around Braddan Church, which is likely therefore to have been the focus of human activity in the past, and to have given rise to archaeological remains. This would have triggered the Red response under DC11 in the Site Assessment Framework. Under such circumstances my professional recommendation would again be that the developer should undertake an archaeological assessment according to Environment Policy 41 of the Strategic Plan. Without any prompting from me the owner or prospective developer in fact voluntarily undertook a detailed archaeological assessment consisting of a desk-based assessment and followed this up with a geophysical survey of the site. I have reason to believe that the results of those findings are at present commercially confidential pending a detailed planning application, and so I cannot divulge them to a third party. I hope this answers your query. With kind regards Andrew Andrew Johnson Curator ' Field Archaeology / Inspector of Ancient Monuments t: +44 (0) 1624 648025 e: andrew.johnson@mnh.im Manx National Heritage, Eiraght Ashoonagh Vannin Manx Museum, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3LY Isle of Man Registered Charity No 603 www.manxnationalheritage.im

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

design the forma of development in such a way as to avoid the archaeology if possible. DBH002 Archaeological sites and artefacts have been identified in the past on this site. Some of these features are shown on the first Ordnance Survey, undertaken and published in the 1860s; the site is also very close to the centre of the medieval parish, focussed around Braddan Church, which is likely therefore to have been the focus of human activity in the past, and to have given rise to archaeological remains. This would have triggered the Red response under DC11 in the Site Assessment Framework. Under such circumstances my professional recommendation would again be that the developer should undertake an archaeological assessment according to Environment Policy 41 of the Strategic Plan. Without any prompting from me the owner or prospective developer in fact voluntarily undertook a detailed archaeological assessment consisting of a desk-based assessment and followed this up with a geophysical survey of the site. I have reason to believe that the results of those findings are at present commercially confidential pending a detailed planning application, and so I cannot divulge them to a third party. I hope this answers your query. With kind regards Andrew Andrew Johnson Curator Field Archaeology / Inspector of Ancient Monuments t: +44 (0) 1624 648025 e: andrew.johnson@mnh.im Manx National Heritage, Eiraght Ashoonagh Vannin Manx Museum, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3LY Isle of Man Registered Charity No 603 www.manxnationalheritage.im" Please find below the information requested, for clarity I have categorised the request into 4 parts: 1. The results of the archaeological assessment and the geophysical survey of site BH030 2. The results of the archaeological assessment of site DBH002 3. The results of the geophysical survey of site DBH002 4. Alternatively, an independent assessment and survey should be commissioned - how can local residents initiate it?

1. Archaeological assessment and geophysical survey of site BH030 While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance Manx National Heritage does not hold the information that you have requested. 2. Archaeological assessment of site DBH002 While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, under section 20 of the Act, we are not required to provide information in response to a request if it is already reasonably accessible to you, whether free of charge or on payment of a fee. The archaeological survey for site DBH002 is available on the Cabinet Office consultation hub on the below link and the report begins on page 132. https://consult.gov.im/cabinet-office/draft-area-plan- east/consultation/view respondent? b index=300&uuId=563119256 3. Geophysical survey of site DH002 While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the information is absolutely exempt under section 26 of the Act, as the information was provided in confidence and disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence. The information is further exempt from disclosure under section 30 (2) (b) of the Act as disclosure would be “likely to prejudice the commercial interests of a person”, and section 41 of the Act as it is held with a view to being published at a future date as part of a detailed planning application, should the site be deemed capable of development following the conclusion of the Area Plan for the East Inquiry. In the circumstances it is reasonable that the information be withheld from disclosure until that time. As sections 30 and 41 are qualified exemptions, they are subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large.

Factors in favour of disclosure • There is a general public interest in the process of considering sites for development • There is a public interest in conserving the archaeological heritage of the Island

Factors in favour of withholding • Disclosure of the document would undermine the principle of confidentiality and the relationship between potential developers and Manx National Heritage who may be discouraged from seeking advice at an early stage • If the flow information from developers is stalled or stopped, it would be detrimental to the work of Manx National Heritage and their duty to protect and conserve the heritage of the Island • There is an issue of prematurity as the Inquiry is to form a position on whether certain sites are capable of development and to address planning policy matters not to review detailed planning applications. The developer has not submitted a detailed planning application, which is not relevant at this stage. To disclose the report would give one site an unequal level of scrutiny that is not part of the Area Plan process

• Release of the information could cause delays to the process and put prospective developers at a disadvantage • The developer is not seeking planning permission at this stage and if/when they do this report will be included and available to the public who can scrutinise and make comments of support or objection to the Planning Officer • Disclosure of the document would release the information to other interested third parties, which would have a commercial impact on this developer

In taking these factors into account Manx National Heritage determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information. 4. Alternatively, an independent assessment and survey should be commissioned - how can local residents initiate it? Local residents could commission their own assessment and survey by engaging a company or archaeologist, as it is a service not offered by Manx National Heritage. All costs would have to be met by the residents.

Please quote the reference number 988869 in any future communications.

Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.
In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im.

Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi.

I will now close your request as of this date.

Yours sincerely