23rd January 2007, 02:00 PM
Unit of 1,
I like your use of boldface to highlight 'trenching', without highlighting the reference to 'ground survey' in the same sentence, or the reference to 'geophysical survey' in the previous paragraph.
You also fail to highlight the early part of the paragraph, where it says that 'it is reasonable for the planning authority to request' an evaluation 'where early discussions ... or the developer's own research [i.e. a DBA]' indicate that 'important archaeological remains may exist'.
We can conclude from this that:
1. evaluation is not restricted to trenching;
2. it is only applicable where previous information suggests that important remains may be present - not in every case;
3. even in those cases, it is at the discretion of the authority whether or not they request an evaluation - but they are mandated to do so if they think it is necessary, because PPG says it is 'reasonable'.
On your other question - a 5% evaluation can be more destructive than a mitigation strategy in the following circumstances (Dr Pete may come up with others):
1. where there is already enough information to define the scope of mitigation excavation required. 'Keyhole' excavation in trial trenches would then just compromise the quality of the deposits available for the full excavation.
2. where the mitigation strategy involves design solutions to avoid or reduce the impact - e.g. move or rearrange the development away from the archaeological remains identified through DBA and/or non-intrusive surveys, or change the foundation design to avoid disturbing buried archaeology. I have seen this done quite often, and on a large scale.
I have also dealt with large development sites where there was archaeology, but at a very low density. A trial-trenching evaluation, particularly if not targeted on the basis of aerial photo or geophysics evidence, would probably have failed to pick up anything, leading to a probably decision not to impose a planning condition. A watching brief during topsoil stripping, appropriately specified but without prior trial trenching, led to the identification and thorough recording of an extensive archaeological landscape.
In that case, the likely result of an evaluation would have been no mitigation - but because a planning condition was imposed without evaluation, the mitigation strategy found and recorded the remains.
I should say that I consider this case unusual, although not exceptional. I do support, and initiate, the frequent use of evaluation - but not on a knee-jerk basis without prior forethought.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
I like your use of boldface to highlight 'trenching', without highlighting the reference to 'ground survey' in the same sentence, or the reference to 'geophysical survey' in the previous paragraph.
You also fail to highlight the early part of the paragraph, where it says that 'it is reasonable for the planning authority to request' an evaluation 'where early discussions ... or the developer's own research [i.e. a DBA]' indicate that 'important archaeological remains may exist'.
We can conclude from this that:
1. evaluation is not restricted to trenching;
2. it is only applicable where previous information suggests that important remains may be present - not in every case;
3. even in those cases, it is at the discretion of the authority whether or not they request an evaluation - but they are mandated to do so if they think it is necessary, because PPG says it is 'reasonable'.
On your other question - a 5% evaluation can be more destructive than a mitigation strategy in the following circumstances (Dr Pete may come up with others):
1. where there is already enough information to define the scope of mitigation excavation required. 'Keyhole' excavation in trial trenches would then just compromise the quality of the deposits available for the full excavation.
2. where the mitigation strategy involves design solutions to avoid or reduce the impact - e.g. move or rearrange the development away from the archaeological remains identified through DBA and/or non-intrusive surveys, or change the foundation design to avoid disturbing buried archaeology. I have seen this done quite often, and on a large scale.
I have also dealt with large development sites where there was archaeology, but at a very low density. A trial-trenching evaluation, particularly if not targeted on the basis of aerial photo or geophysics evidence, would probably have failed to pick up anything, leading to a probably decision not to impose a planning condition. A watching brief during topsoil stripping, appropriately specified but without prior trial trenching, led to the identification and thorough recording of an extensive archaeological landscape.
In that case, the likely result of an evaluation would have been no mitigation - but because a planning condition was imposed without evaluation, the mitigation strategy found and recorded the remains.
I should say that I consider this case unusual, although not exceptional. I do support, and initiate, the frequent use of evaluation - but not on a knee-jerk basis without prior forethought.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished