15th December 2005, 06:05 PM
Mike,
I am not sure if you are up for a debate or just wish to correct factual errors. If you are up for a debate then here goes:
In the assessment you say that:
?If archaeological remains of national significance which are under statutory protection do not merit preservation in situ in advance of agricultural intensification, it is difficult to justify the preservation of archaeological remains of far lesser significance which are not and will not meet the criteria to achieve statutory protection.?
In a nutshell you seem to be arguing that there is a ?dividend? or gain in excavating archaeological remains that are being destroyed by ploughing albeit paid for by gravel extraction. Speaking hypothetically if the permitted development right of ploughing to normal agricultural depth on scheduled monuments is removed in the review of designations etc would this argument be as compelling? It makes sense to me.
Equally PPG says Preservation in situ is the preferred option in any event paradoxically it does not say preservation in situ is to be preferred provided that there is no other threat which may or may not be within the scope or remit of the planning system.
To take your argument to the extreme point thus a Local Planning Authority before refusing permission would have to demonstrate there are:
No trees
No badgers
No cattle or people erosion
No dewatering or whatever.
This was the crux of the argument over a site in Croydon reported in Samuels and Pugh Archaeology in Law. The inspector decided that it was better to preserve in situ.
Dr Peter Wardle
The Archaeological Consultancy
I am not sure if you are up for a debate or just wish to correct factual errors. If you are up for a debate then here goes:
In the assessment you say that:
?If archaeological remains of national significance which are under statutory protection do not merit preservation in situ in advance of agricultural intensification, it is difficult to justify the preservation of archaeological remains of far lesser significance which are not and will not meet the criteria to achieve statutory protection.?
In a nutshell you seem to be arguing that there is a ?dividend? or gain in excavating archaeological remains that are being destroyed by ploughing albeit paid for by gravel extraction. Speaking hypothetically if the permitted development right of ploughing to normal agricultural depth on scheduled monuments is removed in the review of designations etc would this argument be as compelling? It makes sense to me.
Equally PPG says Preservation in situ is the preferred option in any event paradoxically it does not say preservation in situ is to be preferred provided that there is no other threat which may or may not be within the scope or remit of the planning system.
To take your argument to the extreme point thus a Local Planning Authority before refusing permission would have to demonstrate there are:
No trees
No badgers
No cattle or people erosion
No dewatering or whatever.
This was the crux of the argument over a site in Croydon reported in Samuels and Pugh Archaeology in Law. The inspector decided that it was better to preserve in situ.
Dr Peter Wardle
The Archaeological Consultancy