23rd January 2007, 11:17 PM
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!
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!