DBA, method statement, project design

[gorilla]

Unit of 1...

Just exactly what, or rather who, are the parasites you are referring to?

[drpeterwardle]

Unit of 1 said

"no planning permission for any development anywhere should be given without an intrusive trial excavation; Yes- unless its scheduled".

This is a total absurdity. A 5% evaluation can be more destructive than a mitigation strategy. At the oppossite extreme. How about a change of use permission or a certificate of lawful use where no ground disturbance is planned?

The point of an evaluation is to determine if an archaeological planning condition will be imposed, if there will be a required to preserve archaeological remains in situ or if the application will be refused.

If the planning outcome is known then an evaluation is not neccessary.

Dr Peter Wardle

[Unitof1]

PeepeeG

(b) Field Evaluations
21. Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer's own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken. This sort of evaluation is quite distinct from full archaeological excavation. It is normally a rapid and inexpensive operation, involving ground survey and small-scale trial trenching, but it should be carried out by a professionally qualified archaeological organisation or archaeologist.

A 5% evaluation can be more destructive than a mitigation strategy. how?

[hurting-back]

There are many large scale developments which may incorporate big areas with no impact (i.e. playing fields etc...) and putting trenches everywhere does impact on the archaeology. If one does a detailed geophysical survey 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 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 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) it would be an unnecessary impact. Using DBAs and Geophysics also has the benefit of contextualising trenching results 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 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 and archaeological information in the SMR adding to our resources.

don't panic!

[1man1desk]

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

[Unitof1]

I bolded once and am not sure what ground survey is. I dont think that by doing ground survey you get out of trial trenching

We can conclude from this that:
1. evaluation is not restricted to trenching; -say evaluation to me and I dig a trench

2. it is only applicable where previous information suggests that important remains may be present - not in every case; -I suggest previous trial trenching and 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'. –by evaluation you dont mean trial trenching?

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.

I think that a developer/archaeologist would be a fool to go into excavation without a trial trench or two

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.

Ban watching briefs

[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.

[geodan]

I think that 1man needs to find a brick wall he can aim his head at.

Happiness depends on ourselves.

[1man1desk]

Posted by Geodan:

quote: I think that 1man needs to find a brick wall he can aim his head at.

I think that's what I've been doing...

Given up on this discussion now. Doesn't seem much point any more.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Paul Belford]

If its any consolation you are not the only one who has been put off discussion on this and other threads by this particular contributor.