Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
3rd August 2006, 11:47 AM
DMRB Guidelines re archaeology VOL 10 and 11 are they a help or a hinderance for archaeology do they benefit the developer or the heritage. Just reading through it looks like a lot of get out of jail re cards in there for the developer and a ability to ignore the usual PPG16
Close enough for a country job!
What do you mean lost on price again!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
3rd August 2006, 02:11 PM
Do you have a link for this, please?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
3rd August 2006, 02:36 PM
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
3rd August 2006, 04:27 PM
Thanks for that.
Without looking at it too much because I have work to do, I would suggest that this is very grey area slumbering inbetween PPG16 and submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment/Statement. It mainly down to the insistence of the local curators and other statutory bodies to get these treated responsibly.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
3rd August 2006, 05:14 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Sparky I would suggest that this is very grey area slumbering inbetween PPG16 and submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment/Statement. It mainly down to the insistence of the local curators and other statutory bodies to get these treated responsibly.
I don't think that Sparky's 'grey area slumbering' is actually that grey (or that somnolent). My understanding is that the Highways Agency (at least in England) use Oxford Archaeology as archaeological consultants (and I have indeed worked on a road related project where members of OAU staff made regular monitoring visits).
I imagine that in many cases this is a preferable arrangement when road and bridge schemes are not covered by local authority curators (such as schemes that are through Act of Parliament statutory undertakings) and/or where they cross one or more local authority boundaries and could fall under the jurisdiction of one or more curators.
Maybe someone from OAU would be able to say whether they contact local curators as a matter of courtesy in such circumstances. I also don't know whether similar agency agreements cover Scotland, Wales and NI.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
3rd August 2006, 07:43 PM
Kevin,
The greyness is in the consultation (with curators) stage not with the management/consultants. There should be an aim to be in agreement with mitigation and methodology before submission of the EIA/ES so as to avoid objections which may hinder the project. So, the greyness is in the degree that both parties choose to deal with the archaeology; deals are often struck.
In my own experience, the treatment of archaeology is generally very good and on a par with PPG16 requirements. Most of individuals involved tend to uphold good standards. There are, of course, the exceptions that elude the process, falling into another grey area where the curator can not do anything about various bad decisions/practices and the DTI don't reply to complaints/don't want to know.
I was meant to be working....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
3rd August 2006, 07:52 PM
Anyway, the ambiguity is really with the requirements, as suggested by statutory planning consents, and those very blurred, loosely defined (as pointed out by trowelhead) guidelines that often accompany EIS/ES schemes.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
3rd August 2006, 08:30 PM
I imagine however in most cases that it is actually fairly black and white as to whether the undertakers of a road or bridge scheme have an obligation to consult a local curator. Isn't it.....?
The DMRB Document 10 states that most road schemes are not covered by PPG16 as they are promoted through separate and specific legislation (often including binding clauses regarding heritage issues, as opposed to the 'advisory' nature of PPG16), but that the general principles of PPG16 are followed.
I am not sure that I actually see a grey area here or (bearing in mind that the Highway Agency archaeological consultant acts ex officio as a curator) that there is a failure in any instance to consider archaeology as a pertient issue.
Can I ask Trowelhead (who started this thread) if they are aware of a failure in the system?
(Genuinely interested following personal experience of trying to manage archaeological work on a large infrastructure project, where the Act of Parliament authorising the work specifically excluded the local curator and delegated the archaeological curation to an agent of the developer).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
3rd August 2006, 10:07 PM
Kevin,
There is no 'statutory' obligation for the developers on these schemes to do what the curator asks unless there is a scheduling or listed building matter.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
4th August 2006, 01:39 PM
The value of DMRB vol 10 is that it represents the only piece of guidance (and remember, it is only guidance, not legislation) from a Government body on how to undertake Environmental Impact Assessment in relation to heritage issues in England. Yes - there are weaknesses with the methodoology used in DMRB, but I do not consider DMRB as an attempt to bypass PPG16. Although EH are referred to in the first instance for consultation, EH will usually go to the local curators to agree a common approach.
The whole of DMRB is currently under review and heritage is apparently one of the most advanced topics in terms of the review period. The revised DMRB will include advice on how to assess settings (hoorah) as well as how to assess impacts on the overall historic environment.
The current input of archaeologists into Highways Agency road schemes is very high and reviewed by a number of people at each stage. The HA has regional framework agreements for advice on road schemes, currently (I think) including RPS, Atkins Heritage and CGMS. Main road-building contractors will have their own archaeological consultants and contractors on board from an early stage, especially with the new-style Early Contractor Involvement where the contractor picks the scheme uop before the Planning Inquiry and takes it through Inquiry, Redesign, Build etc.
The Highways Agency now pick up the tab for all of the archaeological works through to publication - a great leap forward from 10-15 years ago when they just threw £100k p/a at English Heritage to cover all work in that year regardless of how many schemes were underway or where these schemes were.
Anyone who thinks that DMRB is an easy way out should try working their way through a major scheme (and that's before we even get onto WebTAG etc).
Beamo
