Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Would you argue that each landowner should appoint their own archaeologist to consider whether they should have a watching brief on what ever using what ever model they like or would you suggest that if each landowner did appoint their own archaeologist that they would not want the archaeologist to watch particularly if the polluter was paying
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by olgirl:
Quote:quote:it is also true to say that pipelines often do not fall within the planning system
Very true, just like lots of large schemes (e.g. trunk roads). I just didn't want to complicate my original post by going into that kind of issue.
However, most schemes not covered by the planning system would be subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (which is what I spend most of my time doing), and ultimately to authorisation by a Secretary of State. The decision about the need for archaeological works would still ultimately be based on consultation with a curator.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by Unit of 1:
Quote:quote:Would you argue that each landowner should appoint their own archaeologist to consider whether they should have a watching brief on what ever using what ever model they like or would you suggest that if each landowner did appoint their own archaeologist that they would not want the archaeologist to watch particularly if the polluter was paying
No, I wouldn't suggest that.
If you let each landowner make their own decision, it is a charter for destroying the archaeology unrecorded. And if the polluter is paying, that will be the developer (in this case the pipeline company), not the landowner.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
1man if the land is not scheduled, doesn?t the landowner own the rights to the archaeology?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2007
TMSARCH - how would you know that the whole length of the pipeline was made ground?
Are you using borehole and trial hole data, taken every 100m to account for this information?
What if the material wasnt spread evenly?
What happens if the pipeline needs to bench the route and remove more soil than the topsoil strip?
Its not that cut and dried as you suggest I am afraid. There is always the potential for locating archaeological remains as we all know and the construction companys do not always follow their own method statements for the soil removal work. Therefore the safest option on 'large linear schemes' is to monitor the work.
Thoughts?
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".
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Unitof1
'if the land is not scheduled, doesn?t the landowner own the rights to the archaeology?'
The landowner owns the artefacts whether the land is scheduled or not. Pipeline builders pay the landowner for wayleave to construct and maintain the pipeline, but this does not include any transfer of ownership of artefacts. The pipeline builders pick up the bill for the undertaking of archaeological work.
Nobody owns 'the rights to the archaeology', whatever these may be.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
I not either sure what I mean by rights to the archaeology. Possibly its more motivation or exploitation. What I am trying to imagine is why should a landowner give a monkeys about the archaeology on their land. Currently the interests I think are vested. The archaeologists get access, the developer pays, the developer may have appointed a consultant, the curators, through the vagaries of the eias and dti, curate. They all have their ways of managing the project. One developer (who can be a confusion of engineering contractor and gas transporter), one consultant, one curator and one archaeologist and bloody miles of ground.
Nice lamdowner if they do anything at all they donate the finds with the archive for the good of the nation. Its all tied up in the wayleaves, I believe the standard contract mentions minerals.
What if I was the nice landowner. Yes your going to put a pipeline through my , thats all right but I have been protecting the archaeology in situ. What are you going to pay me for it? Where in the agreement does it say x amount for the destruction of your archaeology?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Unitof1
Yes - nice landowners will donate the finds to the recipient museum as part of the project archive - they will complete a form supplied by the archaeological contractor agreeing transfer of ownership.
I suppose that in the event of a landowner objecting to a pipeline route on the grounds that it would damage archaeological remains that are not subject to any form of statutory protection, the developer would probably be willing to revise the route rather than cause any unecessary grief with the landowner.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
No the landowner is not objecting to the pipeline going through their land. What the landowner is looking for is compensation for loss of assets. They do it for loss of crops and they are certain to make sure that the land is reinstated to current and better standard condition. Defra/EH are currently trying to encourage minimum tillage and shallow ploughing methods, to protect potential archaeology. Surley archaeologists should be trying to show the landowners that the archaeology is an asset, an asset which they will lose down the length of the easement and that they should be compensated for its loss to them?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Quote:quote:Originally posted by darksider
TMSARCH - how would you know that the whole length of the pipeline was made ground?
Are you using borehole and trial hole data, taken every 100m to account for this information?
What if the material wasnt spread evenly?
What happens if the pipeline needs to bench the route and remove more soil than the topsoil strip?
Its not that cut and dried as you suggest I am afraid. There is always the potential for locating archaeological remains as we all know and the construction companys do not always follow their own method statements for the soil removal work. Therefore the safest option on 'large linear schemes' is to monitor the work.
Thoughts?
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".
Thanks for the reply, I certainly wasn't suggesting the issue was cut and dry - quite the opposite. It is also not as cut and dry to suggest that there should be a blanket watching brief along the whole of every pipeline route, mitigation needs to be tailored to the individual case.
In my example (which I very much generalised - not wanting to go into too much detail - was based on a recent real life scheme in the south-east (coincidence?)) the made-ground was reasonably well documented (or perhaps sufficiently well documented - don't want to open a debate on what is reasonable!), as highlighted by the dba, and due to its nature was subject to thorough test-pitting and boreholes exercise (by the engineers onto which the archaeological work 'piggybacked'). No the material was not evenly spread, but the tolerances were such that the decision could be taken not to monitor a significant portion of the route and that archaeological resources could be better spent. This was a decision which was subject to a lot of discussion and analysis, but I feel the correct one was reached in the end. Yes the scheme was monitored, but not a blanket watching brief along the whole route.
I do not agree that there 'is always the potential for locating archaeological remains as we all know', this might generally be the case but there are exceptions.
I would say in the majority of cases a watching brief along the whole of the pipeline should be implemented. But if I were asked should there ALWAYS be a watching brief along the length of a pipeline? I would say no.
No Watching Brief on Pipelines!?!
