15th February 2009, 11:40 AM
Just to clarify two comments.
A DBA is produced as part of the planning process in order that an informed planning decision is going to be made the decisions are this:
1. Should the application be refused
2. Should archaeological remains be preserved in situ
3. Should an archaeological planning condition be imposed on the development.
A DBA is summary of known infomation about a particular piece of land it is not a study in the land use history of a site although in fact they may be a key part of a DBA.
It is perfectly possible to have 20 or more plans and maps in an urban dba- my point there is little point in duplicating infomation.
Chert said.
"When reproducing maps, try to keep them to scale, or at least to a consistent scale where possible. Think evaluation, if you know to the nearest metre where building X was, you can accurately locate your evaluation trench over it!"
Yes keep the plans to scale and mark the scale on the plan. Locating things to the nearest metre will only be done with luck given that for example OS plans are drawn to an accuracy of [u]+</u>2.5m.
Finally for many years I have been saying that we have expanded the definition of what archaeology is without people realising it. So I ask Paul to tell us what date he things things should be no longer regarded as archaeological?
Peter Wardle
A DBA is produced as part of the planning process in order that an informed planning decision is going to be made the decisions are this:
1. Should the application be refused
2. Should archaeological remains be preserved in situ
3. Should an archaeological planning condition be imposed on the development.
A DBA is summary of known infomation about a particular piece of land it is not a study in the land use history of a site although in fact they may be a key part of a DBA.
It is perfectly possible to have 20 or more plans and maps in an urban dba- my point there is little point in duplicating infomation.
Chert said.
"When reproducing maps, try to keep them to scale, or at least to a consistent scale where possible. Think evaluation, if you know to the nearest metre where building X was, you can accurately locate your evaluation trench over it!"
Yes keep the plans to scale and mark the scale on the plan. Locating things to the nearest metre will only be done with luck given that for example OS plans are drawn to an accuracy of [u]+</u>2.5m.
Finally for many years I have been saying that we have expanded the definition of what archaeology is without people realising it. So I ask Paul to tell us what date he things things should be no longer regarded as archaeological?
Peter Wardle