23rd January 2007, 01:47 PM
There are many large scale developments which may incorporate big areas with no impact (i.e. playing fields etc...) and putting trenches everywhere does impact on the archaeology. If one does a detailed geophysical survey of the area and finds concentrations of archaeology a developer will often (I have seen this many times) avoid the area by re-designing the development, thus avoiding the need for any trenching as nothing would happen at the site thus ensuring that an archaeological resource is preserved in situ. If the site had been carpet bombed with trenches such a concentration could undergo substantial sampling, even with a minimal approach, and in such a situation (where a re-design could avoid impact altogether) it would be an unnecessary impact. Using DBAs and Geophysics also has the benefit of contextualising trenching results and allowing for more considered planning and design decisions to be made.
Also the mitigation area is often much smaller than the total evaluation area and (as stated above) a developer will often place their main impact on these larger schemes away from high concentrations of archaeology to avoid the costs involved. If this result can be achieved with less trenching then there is less damage to the total archaeological resource within an area, a smaller cost to the developer and more heritage and archaeological information in the SMR adding to our resources.
don't panic!
Also the mitigation area is often much smaller than the total evaluation area and (as stated above) a developer will often place their main impact on these larger schemes away from high concentrations of archaeology to avoid the costs involved. If this result can be achieved with less trenching then there is less damage to the total archaeological resource within an area, a smaller cost to the developer and more heritage and archaeological information in the SMR adding to our resources.
don't panic!