DBA, method statement, project design

[drpeterwardle]

The joy of BAJR when other consultants join in. Thanks lads and lasses.

How about a Nationally Important site across all the development area with deep complex stratigraphy?

There is no point in evaluation because we know the archaeology is there we know it is well preserved we know it is important we know what depth it is at. The work has to go ahead to help protect and preserve a more important building.

There is no point in any event with having an evaluation let alone a 5% one in these kind of situations. In one case the building would have fallen down if we had.

In one case a detailed assessment vast amounts of documentary research and a detailed map regression analysis was followed by a radar survey. The radar pinpointed areas of disturbance identified by the map regression analysis.

A test pit circa 750mmx750mm was dug through said wall to establish the depth of natural and its nature. The engineers needed this info.

The foundations and floor levels were designed to minimise destruction and the net result was under 1% of the archaeological remains being disturbed and only one complete in situ burial disturbed. Not bad I would suggest.

I have done similar things on some of the most important archaeological sites in the country.

Dr Peter Wardle
Archeological Consultant.
(sorry if you think I am blowing my own trumpet! I am. It is all about very accurate correction of historic mapping and spending a bit of resource on good background research. And yes there was a project design method statements. Yes there were open days and we even had a web cam broadcasting the work except when human remains were visible)

[hurting-back]

Unitof1 what are you on about? hovercraft buildings? honestly! What I mean is that a developer will sometimes buy a very large plot of land of which only a proportion will actually impact on the ground (foundations, services etc....).

Most developers are aware of archaeological and ecological issues which may require them to modify their design to avoid on site restrictions on their development and purposely leave spare capacity in the land purchase.

Using non-intrusive techniques can help to encourage developers to have a closer look at archaeological issues earlier on in the planning process and target their development impact away from any obvious archaeology revealed by this work. Then intrusive trenching would be used to determine the nature of any archaeology which may not have shown up in this 'blank' area. Where it uncovers something it would be mitigated by an excavation.

Should we opt for a blanket coverage of trenches across an entire development without considering other techniques we would have likely discovered the same thing (with luck, trenching often misses archaeology) and probably taken the same course of action; the difference is that by using non-intrusive techniques it is often possible to target all intrusive works away from areas of potential and avoid any damage at all...of course you could just spend more money and put more holes into archaeological features for no good reason.....:face-huh:

You asked how a 5% evaluation could cause more damage than a mitigation - I have just told you; by digging trenches unnecessarily when there are other ways of detecting archaeology and avoiding impacts...I was only illustrating an example to explain this.

Other points:

Heritage: What I meant was that often DBAs amalgamate recent excavation and research undertaken in an area and are a good means of keeping an easily accessible resource to consider in planning. It is nice to have when doing archaeology no?

Mitigation areas: Yes I am pretty sure about that.

Contextualising: Yes I know; non-intrusive and intrusive evaluation techniques are complimentary and each provides a different means of viewing the archaeology of a site to determine the nature of the archaeological impact of a development, I wouldn't suggest not using trenches when there is a need to! I was simply stating that a better view and course of action can be arrived at using all three techniques and viewing their results together.

Playing fields and open areas: These do exist you know! I don't think anyone would pay £200,000 for a house if it were encased by other properties and concrete!

Discussion: When people exchange points of view in a mature and constructive manner - I really don't appreciate the implication that I don't care about archaeology simply because I dared to raise a point with you. B) You may note in my original response that I was not being aggressive towards you and was simply trying to contribute to a debate.

don't panic!

[Unitof1]

[u]“a Nationally Important site across all the development area with deep complex stratigraphy”</u>

“There is no point in evaluation because we know the archaeology is there”

“The work has to go ahead to help protect and preserve”-what?

“a more important building”

“vast amounts of documentary research and a detailed map regression analysis was followed by a radar survey. The radar pinpointed areas of “disturbance” identified by the map regression analysis”.

“[u]750mmx750mm was dug</u>”-The engineers needed this info

“designed to minimise destruction”

“only one complete in situ burial disturbed. Not bad I would suggest.” ........... (750x750mm)

“I have done similar things on some of the most important archaeological sites in the country.”

(sorry if you think I am blowing my own trumpet! I am. It is all about very accurate correction of historic mapping and spending a bit of resource on good background research. And yes there was a project design method statements. Yes there were open days and we even had a web cam broadcasting the work except when human remains were visible)

[u]diggers nil by mouth</u>

[drpeterwardle]

It is late and I have been out celebrating getting a lbc.

I think the question was what was the building?

Answer grade II * church, by definition Nationally Important, with historical associations with a person who is part of the national consciousness. With nationally important secular remains in the churchyard.

The work is continuing, although the work demanded by the planning system is complete. Within the church some of the most important romesque sculpture north of the alps is displayed.

As I say I am sorry about blowing my own trumpet. We also only disturbed less than 1% of the fabric. I would suggest the amount of archaeology excavated more than justifies bringing a redundant church back into beneficial use. It has now been re-licensed as a church.

And all of this without a pre-determination evaluation. The clients were of course heaven sent and value our heritage.

Dr Peter.

(Unavailable the morning of the 25 jan)

[Unitof1]

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/uploa...mains1.pdf

it says evaluation on the tin

[geodan]

Sorry 1man, it was late in a tiring day. I should have said a different brick wall to aim your head at.

Happiness depends on ourselves.

[drpeterwardle]

Yes I am aware of the Church of England/English Heritage document. I was at its launch at Lambeth Palace.

I have to say I dont agree with all of the document. As the document says it will be revised in the light of new experiences. On the St Nicholas project we did do a number of things which were unconventional and/or experimental for example the radar survey.

In my view we have to live with the document because what is important about it is the fact that it is a joint publication between Church and EH. This thus demonstrates that the Church is taking archaeological remains seriously.

We also for example took about 5000 photographs so we think this is the most thoroughly recorded church.

Peter Wardle

[Unitof1]

Dr did this church have any of this for its up keep

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catal...ri2251.htm

[drpeterwardle]

By defintion it didnt. It was redundant.

Peter
(Not sure how the question is relevant to the thread on DBAs)

[Unitof1]

The chancel repair subject has been bubbling away over the last few years and at the same time lots of repairs have been made with money from various public funds. It could be asked if it should be a subject of a DBA although in terms of peepeeG I am not sure who the developer would be as in who the DBA was for.

Are you saying that if a church is made redundant its chancel repair liability is lost?