DBA, method statement, project design

[Unitof1]

There are many large scale developments which may incorporate big areas with no impact (i.e. playing fields etc...)

Playing fields! LPA playing fields- where they get to do what they want and make the consents cheap so that they can get the development grants.......
weak back

and putting trenches everywhere does impact on the archaeology. What archaeology, you haven’t done the trenches yet -you’ve been to busy finding excuses not to do any archaeology

If one does a “detailed” geophysical survey [/i]- only confirmable by trench evaluation

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 (how many times have you seen this) 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 (normally a rapid and inexpensive operation, involving ground survey and small-scale trial trenching-PeepeeG) 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” -(hoverbuildings serviced from the sky?) it would be an unnecessary impact and in no way would an evaluation have been made -what. Oh watching brief it is then.

Using DBAs and Geophysics also has the benefit of contextualising trenching results and allowing for more considered planning and design decisions to be made.

I suggest

trenching results also has the benefit of contextualising DBAs and Geophysics 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 (are you sure) 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 (whats that) and archaeological information in the SMR adding to our resources. less cost- more archaeology.. sounds too good to be true

Gorilla are you getting the gist.