PPS5 PARIs

[Steven]

Hi
PPS 5 has put forward preservation in-situ as the preferred outcome of a development. This is referred to in the guidance notes para 99, 3.
Are we all really happy with this as a starting point?
Personally I have a real issue with PARIS with only actually deals with the immediate threat without taking any account of the subsequent impacts. A pretty simple example is a housing development on a greefield where all the foundations are rafted to avoid impacting on say, a small scale Iron Age settlement. Ok fine the development process has avoided impact but then all of the houses have acquired permitted development rights to install ponds, build extensions, install subsurface heat exchangers and a host of other "impacts" like new drains.
I have been in many situations where consultants/developers have put forward rafts and piles as "preservation" and then pointed out how "other curators" have excepted this. I also come across SMCs for evaluations where the eval trench depth is restricted to the "impact" levels of a raft, because PARIS is the overriding concept. Of course then reality bites and the raft has to be 200mm deeper than expected, oh and the drains are all under the raft at a depth of 1m, oh and it's wet so the machines cause ruts etc...
I assume that an evaluation should seek to assess impacts and "potential impacts" so I always argue its better to over evaluate than under assess. I also believe that subsequent impacts are integral to the original development so evaluation/mitigation should not be restricted to "direct impact".
Am I alone in this thinking? Or is everybody else happy about Preservation in-situ being "foundations that span sensitive areas rather than penetrate them"?

[Dinosaur]

Still waiting for the exciting in-house training session on PPS 5, but I'm with you on all of that. Has been b****y annoying on a really rather large number of jobs in the past to leave stuff 'in situ' then drive past 6 months later and notice that it's all been trashed - unnofficially one or two of the curators around here have realised that they're completely wasting their time naively thinking in situ stuff stays in situ for more than 5 minutes after the planning condition(s) is signed off, but their hands are a bit tied (and presumably even more so now, handcuffs and legchains as well)....luckily my last 'leave in situ and redesign' evaluation now has a planning condition attached for everything including drains etc with specified minimum invert levels, archaeological cover etc written into the planning condition, but that's a rare victory.....

[Jack]

Save what you can!.......give nothing back. Ahar!

[Sith]

Surely it should be necessary for the applicant, consultant or whoever, to propose exactly how their mitigation will acheive preservation in situ, in consultation with the Curator. That way there should be no nasty surprises.

[vulpes]

Sorry folks but we seem to have started this thread on a false premise. The PPS5 guidance does not present preservation in situ as the preferred outcome at all. It merely states that:

99. Sites, places and buildings having, or suspected of having, archaeological interest can be particularly sensitive to development. Sometimes even very minor works can irrevocably damage the interests of a future investigation of the site. In such cases the applicant and local planning authority will need to:

1. Properly understand the nature, relative importance and physical extent of the archaeological interest in these sites through a desk-based assessment, field evaluation, basic appraisal or recording of the asset, as required.
2. Consider proposed uses that are benign to the conservation of the asset’s significance.
3. Seek to eradicate or minimise impact through design (for example, foundations that span sensitive areas rather than penetrate them).

From this it is quite clear that preservation in situ is just something to be considered alongside points 1 and 2. Furthermore, this document is guidance and is therefore not prescriptive just indicative of paths that may be taken. 'Seek to' and 'Consider' are not equivalent to 'will' or 'must'.

With regard to preservation in situ PPS5 etc signals a change in policy away from this being the ideal, to it being just one of a number of paths that may be taken....

Hope that clears it up, and sorry for the random font sizing!!:face-approve:

[Dinosaur]

Surely it should be necessary for the applicant, consultant or whoever, to propose exactly how their mitigation will acheive preservation in situ, in consultation with the Curator. That way there should be no nasty surprises.

The nasty surprises come when, having built the house within the carefully archaeologically excavated footings, the new owner then digs out all the remaining 'archaeology in situ' to plant the garden full of trees, shrubs, dead pets etc, for which he requires no planning permission at all!

By the way, presumably within the growth industry of Japanese Knotweed Eradication (which involves removing the top 2 metres of soil/archaeological deposits, riddling it to fish out any bits of roots, then dumping it back in randomised order) there are no archaeological constraints? - this type of unrestricted activity probably poses one of the greatest threats to Britain's below-ground heritage? Is there even any central record of what locations this appalling vandalism has occurred in? :0

[Sith]

Sorry folks but we seem to have started this thread on a false premise. The PPS5 guidance does not present preservation in situ as the preferred outcome at all. It merely states that: ..

I agree, it doesn't. however, I thought that what we were discussing was the effectiveness of preservation in situ where it became the agreed mitigation.

The detail of how preservation in situ will be acheived should be part of the Written Scheme of Investigation agreed with the Curator. Preparing, agreeing and then actually carrying out what the WSI says normally forms part of the planning condition. It's then up to the planners advised by the Curator to enforce the conditions.

[beamo]

'The nasty surprises come when, having built the house within the carefully archaeologically excavated footings, the new owner then digs out all the remaining 'archaeology in situ' to plant the garden full of trees, shrubs, dead pets etc, for which he requires no planning permission at all!'

On a similar theme I was once involved in a housing development that was wholly within a Scheduled Monument. Some limited archaeological excavation had been undertaken and the previous landowner had somehow managed to get SMC and planning permission for residential development without any requirement for further archaeological work and had flogged the land to another developer (10 years later) on that basis. However EH pointed out that although the SMC allowed the construction of the housing estate, there was no obligation on EH to then recommend that the land was descheduled - this would have left houseowners in the position of having to apply for SMC each time they wanted to plant a rose bush etc.

Common (i.e. commercial) sense prevailed and the developer paid for further excavation and publication, and the land was descheduled.

More generally however Sith is right here, it is for the applicant to demonstrate exactly how the scheme mitigation will acheive preservation in situ. The problem can then be that if subsequent studies show that the mitigation is not working (e.g the site is becoming dewatered when it should not have been), what action can be taken? Will the development need to be removed, or will additional mitigation be needed, or can the developer just pay an agreed fee/fine and try to do better next time?


Beamo

[vulpes]

You may be discussing the effectiveness of PARIS. However, the point I was making was relevant - so I'll repeat it - that it may perhaps sink in this time.

PPS5 and it's accompanying guidance do not set out that PARIS or any other mitigation strategy are 'preferred'.

Also, planting a rose bush and other normal horticultural activity does not require specific Scheduled Monument Consent as it is covered under Class 1 consent. Have a look at the guidance.

The assertion that common sense is 'commercial' sense is pretty funny though...

Also your story (Beamo) about a site being sold 10 years later with planning permission and SMC is quite interesting when both would have expired long before the alleged 10 years had passed.... Pull the other one...

Not sure what your agenda is but you could at least stick to the plausible when you're confabulating.

Sith - the use of the term Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) in relation to schmes of Preservation in situ is surely redundant as the investigation should have already been done. Perhaps Project Design or Written Scheme of Preservation should be employed, better not to confuse the clients as to what you're up to.

Sorry, now you can get back to your anecdotes regarding permitted development etc.....

[kevin wooldridge]

...can I also join Vulpes in correcting an assumption that shouldn't be so assumed. The latest 'weapon' in the war against knotweed is actually an aphid that keeps knotweed in check by sap-sucking.....so maybe 2m remediation could be a thing of the past and insects could protect the past.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthne...tweed.html

On a more general point what ever happened to BAJRites researching a little before posting......