No Watching Brief on Pipelines!?!

[historic building]

I do think that us not knowing all the details is actually the key point here behind the decision. In this wonderful electronic world of ours most documents relating to planning decisions are now online.

[Sparky]

As far as I am concerned this is hypothetical and I think it should remain so. Sorry if I ruffled your pelt, Foxy.
As for evaluation, whats better than a XX kilometer evaluation pipe trench to clear up the stuff you've missed? Seems like an ideal opportunity to me.

[vulpes]

Sparky - if you're paying.

Edited for reasons of wild inaccuracy.....

[Sparky]

It used to be quite normal for a wb on the trenching and was commonly requested by the DCs. It seems to becoming more frequent for the contrary. As for costs, that shouldn't be the concern of a curator but for a representative of the client. However, I would concede that may depend on the nature of each individual project but, as you say above, each evaluative technique can't give you a complete picture.

[oldgirl]

I agree each evaluation technique doesn't give a complete picture, but it's evaluation. This gives information upon which archaeologists (hopefully both 'sides' working together) come up with an appropriate and effective way forward based on the evidence. There's definitely a law of diminishing returns on the work, so it's a question of where you draw the line. And in case anyone out there is almost as cynical as me, yes it is possible for the planning side and the commercial side to work together to get an effective way forward, although I know there are some on this board that would consider both of these 'not proper archaeologists' anyway!

[1man1desk]

Posted by Sparky:

quote:As for costs, that shouldn't be the concern of a curator but for a representative of the client

I'm not going to comment on the specific case, because I don't know it, and I get the impression that neither do most other people on this thread.

However, in relation to costs, we are talking about a planning decision here. While curators shouldn't be swayed too much by costs, like all others in the planning system they are under a requirement to be 'reasonable'. That means that they can only impose a requirement for archaeological work of any kind if there is a reasonable balance between the costs of the work and the archaeological loss that would occur without them. Otherwise, you could make developers spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on the off-chance that they might find a field ditch.

The upshot is that you have to make case-by-case decisions. Some (most?) pipelines will justify a watching brief along their whole length, or most of it. In other cases (a minority?) will only be necessary on a proportion of the route. On a few, it might be quite justified not to have a watching brief at all. The point is, you have to justify the decision each time on the merits of the case, in the light of relevant policy (mainly PPG16).

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[oldgirl]

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying 1man1desk, but it is also true to say that pipelines often do not fall within the planning system. They are either subject to DTI consent (e.g. large gas pipelines) or can be covered by agreement to abide by a code of conduct (many water pipelines). In many cases the planning archaeologists are involved in much the same way (e.g. as DTI consultees), so it doesn't make a huge amount of difference, but I thought I'd better point that out.

However, you main point still stands. The archaeological strategy needs to be appropriate to the archaeological resource and should be handled on a case by case basis.

[darksider]

The question was, was it appropiate for a watching brief not be caried out along a pipeline as it was believed by the curator or someone that no archaeology would be encountered.

How can you someone say that this is appropiate not undertake a watching brief? Especially as the construction companies expect it and cost for it.

A large linear strip over a distance is always going to turn up something.

Having worked on a pipeline where the curator thought that nothing would turn up as the clay soils usually didnt show up any archaeology and we found a couple of important sites, i find this view astounding.



Count Dooku Consultants

Environmental Advisors to the Separatist Movement

"The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural".

[Sparky]

I agree with all the sentiments expressed here that we don?t know the details of any particular case that this may be and we should treat it as a nameless example, and ignore the possibly quite innocent enquiry made by Achingtrenchhead.

As Oldgirl points out, evaluation techniques work on the law of diminishing returns but this only assumes that each technique is successful and those of us with some years experience know that this isn?t always the case. Geophysics will not detect all archaeological anomalies, trial trenches will be excavated too shallow or will miss archaeological features by mislocation or targeting natural phenomena, commonly SMR records can be sparse for prehistory and indulged by the Roman period onwards (depending where in the UK), for example. Therefore, just because the evaluatory techniques are apparently diminishing the likelihood of archaeology coupled with the variables of not being an exact science does not necessary mean that archaeology does not exist. I find it hard to fathom that a curator or consultant can believe so much in what is already known of the archaeology in a given area that they believe nothing else exists. And of course, nothing will exist if it is not found, and it will not be found if a trained and capable archaeologist isn?t looking for it. I do believe that is the law of self-fulfilling prophecy, and conveniently so.

By the way, I have known curators to insist on watching briefs (including trenching) in areas blank of archaeology purely for the reason that nothing is known about these locations and there is a desire to understand why and if that is the actual case.

[tmsarch]

I have to echo the comments made by others, we don't know the background or details to the particular case referred to by the original poster. It would be wrong to apply a blanket rule, we need to tailor the mitigation to the individual case.

For example lets say initially there is a comprehensive desk-based historic environment assessment of the route of the pipeline. This is followed by a range of intrusive and non-intrusive evaluation techniques (fieldwalking, landscape survey, geophysics, test pitting, boreholes, evaluation trenching). This would allow a reasonable deposit model to be created of the pipeline route. Now lets say the deposit model indicates that a significant part of the route is in an area of deep deposits of made ground. The curator looks at the long section for the pipeline and compares this with the deposit model. It is clear that the pipetrech, chambers, drilling pits, etc. all lie within the made ground and do not reach the (potential) archaeological horizon. Would a watching brief be warranted along the whole length of the scheme - I would argue not.