Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
What's so complex about drainage, it relies on bit a of slope. EH have no defence that I can ascertain. There are authors to that document but I could not pin down which one wrote the trench arch bit, I got a lot of "not mes, somebody might know but they are not about at the moment.". I don't think they had fool for a client - the church, I think the client was looking for a mug archaeologist. They have got hundreds of these churches and they are desperate to get rid of them and think putting toilets in as cheaply as possible is the way to go. They don't care who they shit on. EH are in on the scam as well.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Ah - the "grassy knoll" theory of EH collusion rears its ugly head! (But we all know it was the Comedian what done it...) EH doesn't control the Planning system. It may recommend a low-impact solution, but there are Inspectors, Planning Archaeologists, and others who get to decide if the proposed installation is acceptable and correctly mitigated. The EH institutional fear of putting names on guidance is probably partly to shield folk from lobbying/abuse, but more importantly to prevent knowledge of the identity of the true authors from diminishing the unearned reflected glory the higher-ups derive from saying "MY organisation published guidelines on XXX"! And having looked under the bonnet, I'd be amazed if EH were organised enough to collude in a scam by deliberate action rather than bumbling incompetence...
As for the Church pulling a scam, I couldn't possibly comment.
But I fail to see how this impacts your mitigation or makes you a "mug". If they have an approved scheme (digging a hole) and you agree to investigate/sterilise the archaeology in that hole, then why is it such a problem if afterwards they fill the hole with a turd-drain? You could point out that there will be further impact from the water, but there are proper channels for that sort of complaint. And indeed you could use the results of your mitigation (eg a map of all the grave cuts seen in the base of the trench) to act as a basis for an objection. Of course, it would have helped avoid the whole issue if they had some proper eval work done first, to determine if the area was sterile or not...
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
My experience of many schemes is that the architect's drawings of drainage as passed through planning are purely 'indicative' anyway [often the plans even state this, if you read the little teeny tiny notes by the drawings, often in really quite bad handwriting and extremely fuzzy after copying and passing through several fax machines] and are rarely followed particularly closely by the drainage contractors anyway - in reality they often just make it up as they go along and dig immense holes where they feel like it, while the monitoring archaeologist stands by wringing their hands and wondering why they bothered meticulously hand-excavating and recording the drainage trenches as shown on the plans somewhere completely elsewhere...
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
Dinosaur Wrote:in reality they often just make it up as they go along and dig immense holes where they feel like it, while the monitoring archaeologist stands by wringing their hands and wondering why they bothered meticulously hand-excavating and recording the drainage trenches as shown on the plans somewhere completely elsewhere...
Ah know that feeling. spent days watching a team putting new drains in only for the foreman to check the drawings and realise they were too close to the standing buildings so the whole lot had to be pulled out and done again. Have also worked on sites where the ground works teams got the levels wrong and ended up going far deeper than they should. Archaeology is not the only profession suffering from a lack of skilled and trained staff.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
Yep same goes for pipelines of all sizes, but not always for the worse.
I've seen at least two pipelaying contractors re-route a bit on the ground to avoid damaging archaeological remains and to avoid getting in the way of a public footpath.
'......They had sex in Pennsylvania, a Brazilian grew a tree, A doctor in Manhattan, saved a dying man for free.....its a miracle.'
-Roger Waters
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote: If they have an approved scheme (digging a hole) and you agree to investigate/sterilise the archaeology in that hole, then why is it such a problem if afterwards they fill the hole with a turd-drain? You could point out that there will be further impact from the water, but there are proper channels for that sort of complaint
. Yes and almost always on single residential sites I give the soak always a miss. I ring the curator and say I have stood around here for a few days, have a 80% sample of whats down to be excavated please let me drop the soakaways as they might not do them for another month or two and knowing full well that they will not go where the archaetectural drafts man says they might go.
I don't think that's the same as a soakaways by a church. I don't think eh should even consider a soakaway within ten metres of a church purely on the grounds of archaeological preservation let alone putting a septic tank in. What amazes me with English heritage is that they love all this heritage assets receptor inter visibility but are totally blind to the heritage consequences of taking a dump in a Christian church both physicaly but also spirituality and are willing to invent a sewage system that has no certification that I can find. Trench arch is a con set up for fake archaeologists. Dont give approval by being the mitigation for it.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Marc
Looks as if you have been rattling the right cages on this one.
English Heritage has just issued a tender for
'a rapid, desk-based assessment of the risks to buried archaeological remains from the installation of trench-arch drainage systems in churchyards'.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/profe...p/tenders/ or e-mail to nhpcptenders@english-heritage.org.uk
Beamo
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Maybe someone there occasionally reads the drivel we post on here? Beware BAJR's head exploding if we've unwittingly managed to steer some EH policy}
Marc should tender for the DBA work :face-approve:
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
31st July 2014, 04:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 31st July 2014, 09:20 PM by Marc Berger.)
tremendous! Just got in from 2.5 metres down an evaluation trench. Was hoping that it would last until next week but there was about 2 metres of spoil as well so decided to bottom out. It was only for vehicle access so I was pushing it a bit.
Not sure that self employed field archaeologists can register and I would say that I would be a bit biased. Have just registered but have to wait for confirmation.....
Will give it a go.
how much should I bid? If that isn't giving anything away.....It says that they have a budget of 8.5 grand. couldn't they just read this thread for free.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
9th October 2014, 11:57 AM
I tried to land this odd job but failed to get passed "PQQ" stage and was not invited to tender. Lost out to five "organisations". I spoke to the bloke who wrote the brief and he said that he was not aware of the BAJR thread. Seeing as the brief was almost a photocopy of this BAJR thread you would have thought that I was in with a chance. I told them that I had been told about the project through this thread. They asked for records of last three years earnings and I had to get permission from clients to put down them as examples of contracts that I had done. I was told that two evaluations that I had done this year and a watching brief were not examples of specialist report writing. I was told that the five organisations were all "stronger". That's told me.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
