+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: PPS5 PARIs (/showthread.php?tid=3120)
PPS5 PARIs - vulpes - 30th May 2010
The really key bit of the PPS is the government's objectives (Sections 6-7). As already stated the guidance is just that - Guidance - and represents a recommended route to achieving the objectives and policy outcomes set out in the PPS - it being reasonable to propose and follow other routes than those set out. Decisions regarding heritage assets are always going to be weighed against their significance and this will apply to PARIS as much as to any other strategy. The objectives make this clear - to skip to the 2nd set:
Quote:to conserve England’s heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their
significance by ensuring that:
–– decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of that significance,
investigated to a degree proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset
–– wherever possible, heritage assets are put to an appropriate and viable use
that is consistent with their conservation
–– the positive contribution of such heritage assets to local character and sense
of place is recognised and valued; and
–– consideration of the historic environment is integrated into planning policies,
promoting place-shaping.
The first bit of this objective makes it clear that decisions to conserve should bear in mind the significance of assets - a grey area which will no doubt be filled with much debate - but which certainly does not mean that excavation will be entirely replaced by PARIS. Fundamentally, as with PPG16 it is likely that PARIS will often be a solution adopted for only the most significant remains.
The third and final objective acknowledges that heritage assets will be lost but at least does not perpetuate the lie that recording represents 'preservation by record'.
Quote:to contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past by ensuring that
opportunities are taken to capture evidence from the historic environment and
to make this publicly available, particularly where a heritage asset is to be lost.
I would agree with the government's assertion that PPS5 does not represent a weakening of PPG16 principles, but it does potentially introduce many more factors to be weighed when making decisions and also many more options that may be taken.
PPS5 PARIs - BAJR - 30th May 2010
Thank you Vulpes.
I would also agree that this is not a weaker PPG... it does however have to be tested in reality to see what is to become of it. PPG was seen as a step forard, but seemed to me to produce the state we became/are. commercial imperative over archaeological knowledge. Commercial confidentiality over public access etc It would be nice to see the PPS being what it seems to be... an opening of the gate to the public in a more accessible way. AND to allow more research (where it is justifiable)
PPS5 PARIs - Steven - 30th May 2010
vulpes Wrote:The really key bit of the PPS is the government's objectives (Sections 6-7). As already stated the guidance is just that - Guidance - and represents a recommended route to achieving the objectives and policy outcomes set out in the PPS - it being reasonable to propose and follow other routes than those set out. Decisions regarding heritage assets are always going to be weighed against their significance and this will apply to PARIS as much as to any other strategy. The objectives make this clear - to skip to the 2nd set:
The first bit of this objective makes it clear that decisions to conserve should bear in mind the significance of assets - a grey area which will no doubt be filled with much debate - but which certainly does not mean that excavation will be entirely replaced by PARIS. Fundamentally, as with PPG16 it is likely that PARIS will often be a solution adopted for only the most significant remains.
The third and final objective acknowledges that heritage assets will be lost but at least does not perpetuate the lie that recording represents 'preservation by record'.
I would agree with the government's assertion that PPS5 does not represent a weakening of PPG16 principles, but it does potentially introduce many more factors to be weighed when making decisions and also many more options that may be taken.
[FONT="]Hi
I never suggested that PARIS would entirely replace excavation. What I did was summarise that due to the conservation ethic of PPS5 combined with the very clear considerations set out in the guidance (para. 99 No.3 which as you yourself recognise is the "preferred approach") indicates that PARIS is viewed as a preferred option.
I never suggested that PARIS was the only outcome, I said that it was the "preferred" outcome, I didn't go into when, or under what circumstances, or even mention significance. My main thrust of the post was to discuss the "foundation" design approach and its limitation.
However, you decided that all three aspects of para. 99 were meant to "considered alongside" each other. Which I now presume you see is not the case as they refer to different aspects of consideration (assessment use and finaly PARIS). So rather than "clear it up" for us, you actually misrepresented that particular piece of guidance. You then went on to repeat this in the hope "that it may sink in this time". Then you posted about how you only post to "correct incorrect assertions", despite actually having just done so yourself.
So in light of this do you wish to perhaps apologise for the "petty and ignorant" comment and accept that you are just as flawed as any of us and that perhaps your posts did come across as rather self-satisfied?
Personally I will apologise to you for my post when I called you smug, it was a bit nasty and I regret it. Sorry[/FONT]
PPS5 PARIs - Jack - 1st June 2010
Preservation is situ is an annoying, but very important principle. It is better for the client as a minor alteration to the plans,( i.e. moving the footprint to avoid stuff) can work out cheaper. In the commercial world, its often better for the archaeology as it isn't subject to a rush rescue excavation.
Furthermore, as someone stated somewhere, archaeology is a limited resource, once its excavated its gone, destroyed, all context removed.
As scientific techniques, theories and technologies are getting more advanced every year it is important not to destroy all the evidence before better techniques can be used to extract more information.
Just look at the 'robbing' of barrow mounds when compared to modern techniques. If only they'd kept the rest of the bones and not just the skulls.
If we don't preserve in situ, future archaeologists will look back at us in disgust.
PPS5 PARIs - Steven - 1st June 2010
Jack Wrote:Preservation is situ is an annoying, but very important principle. It is better for the client as a minor alteration to the plans,( i.e. moving the footprint to avoid stuff) can work out cheaper. In the commercial world, its often better for the archaeology as it isn't subject to a rush rescue excavation.
Furthermore, as someone stated somewhere, archaeology is a limited resource, once its excavated its gone, destroyed, all context removed.
As scientific techniques, theories and technologies are getting more advanced every year it is important not to destroy all the evidence before better techniques can be used to extract more information.
Just look at the 'robbing' of barrow mounds when compared to modern techniques. If only they'd kept the rest of the bones and not just the skulls.
If we don't preserve in situ, future archaeologists will look back at us in disgust.
Hi Jack
I sympathise somewhat with your view on this but I'm afraid PARIS is a much more complex issue that it seems. As I said in my earlier post a change of use on a site can bring a host of permitted developments that can have an equal impact on the archaeology as the original development. This means that simply moving the footprint is not PARIS as it does not necessarily preserve archaeology from the impact of the development it may just allow the archaeology to be destroyed piecemeal by subsequent developments not requiring planning permission (new drainage for example doesn't need planning permission). Of course this depends on the nature of the development so in certain circumstances PARIS can be achieved, but there are many, many factors which make PARIS exceptionally difficult in many cases.
Compression of deposits by piles or rafts, de-watering of deposits, sudden on-site "unforeseen" requirements to dig slightly deeper, Mending/re-routing of services years after the development, digging of new drainage after the development, unforeseen changes in the depth of archaeology across the site and many more.
All of these factors and many more have to be taken account of before PARIS can actually be achieved.
I think future archaeologists will understand that it was not "us" that decided to develop sites, it was elected members of LPAs. They may very well understand that there is a lot of archaeology out there and that development only impacts on a tiny percentage of sites. I think that future archaeologists will be much more unhappy if sites supposedly preserved in-situ are lost because the PARIS strategy was flawed and so all remains were removed without any record.
PPS5 PARIs - vulpes - 1st June 2010
Quote:So in light of this do you wish to perhaps apologise for the "petty and ignorant" comment and accept that you are just as flawed as any of us and that perhaps your posts did come across as rather self-satisfied?
I'll say sorry, but don't push it!! so sorry
PPS5 PARIs - Steven - 1st June 2010
Hi
As I said I didn't talk about the SIGNIFICANCE I talked about PARIS being the "prefered" option. I actually discussed the evaluation of scheduled monuments as part of my original post. It was YOU who decided I was talking about ALL assets and not just designated and equally important non-designated assets!
Now, I really do suggest you apologise for your comments.
PPS5 PARIs - vulpes - 1st June 2010
I must point out that section 99 of the guidance only applies to designated heritage assets i.e scheduled monuments (and those exceptions discussed in section 109). As such, permitted development and the 'death by a 1000 cuts' suggested would not be permitted in most cases.
I can't find a direct reference to use of PARIS anywhere else in the document, can anyone else?
Sorry, sorry, sorry - see above.
PPS5 PARIs - Jack - 1st June 2010
Yep. Preservation in situ is a complex issue. It still should be done though. Surely its not that difficult to deal with the problems.
here's a for instance, an evaluation near Hull for yorkshire water found a well-preserved IA/RB settlement. We advised them on the cost to preserve by record. They decided to buy the field next to it as it was cheaper...hence the site got preserved in situ from that development.
Not sure on the issue of there no longer being a condition on the planning application for future work on the site...surely thats up to the planning bods and county archaeological teams to deal with.
As for the other 'practical' issues of actual depth during construction etc. Your right, that should be taken into consideration by the consultants and checked by monitoring archaeologists.
Things like compression and de-watering are taken into account, well at least in my experience.
PPS5 PARIs - vulpes - 1st June 2010
Quote:PPS 5 has put forward preservation in-situ as the preferred outcome of a development
It's true, you do mention SMC briefly much further down in that section but your first line is pretty general in emphasis. Let's put it down to a misunderstanding and agree that PPS5 guidance suggests that applicants and local planning authorities will need to - 'seek to eradicate or minimise impact through design'(i.e. PARIS) in the case of scheduled monuments. As for the rest of archaeological sites.... well, it will be up to people to make their case.