Are Standards in field Archaeology Slipping

[Marc Berger]

I think it should be aimed at the Karzy. Why is the brand hysterical England producing stuff on behalf of the Historic Environment Forum
Published March 2015 just before an election (or was it put up post election). If you can read the introduction you find that its aimed at everybody and their relative accept dear old field archaeologist unless you think "Decision-taking for assets with archaeological interest." is anything to do with field archaeology rather than navel staring. Just look at the list of interventions they put in before doing an evaluation although to give it some due it has not mentioned heritage statement.

This is how I would write it. Dear field archaeologist get to the client before they go anywhere near a planning application. Blast a bloody great inexpensive evaluation trench right across the site ask the developer to give you the finds and then tell the development control world that the whole archive belongs to your aunt in Bombay and you don't want any of them near it. Not a wsi in sight and cifa and its definition of a professional archaeologist (Loyd Grossman) can disappear never to be seen again.

No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a written scheme of investigation (WSI) has been [submitted to and] approved by the local planning authority in writing.

I have got one of these at the moment and whats really stupid about the wording is that the only thing that a field archaeologist can do when development takes place is a watching brief but my local mounties think that it is an excuse to do an assessment but which should have been done like para128 says to inform the decision, preapplication. They say wsi so much they have convinced themselves that it is an intervention in its self. The other really stupide thing about it is that why would I need any form of approval by local planning authority to do an evaluation. Surely evaluations have cifa standards, what does the local authority have to do with reiterating cifa evaluation standards in a wsi standard? And theres more agreement in writing for what? Theres no contract to breach and if it is its in the clients name. I am losing the plot.

Who do you think its aimed at? oh and it does not mention planning committees.

[Sikelgaita]

Who do you think its aimed at?

I think it is aimed at local authority archaeological planning advisors, archaeological consultants, in fact anyone who as part of their role as an archaeologist is providing advice concerning the implementation of NPPF with regard to decision making related to planning matters, and specifically for this document, assessing significance. I believe that by advising your clients that the most effective way for them to assess significance is to undertake evaluation trenching, this document is as relevant to you (as a field archaeologist) as it is to anyone else.

[Marc Berger]

Rubarb, they have put evaluation in this "publication" to make all the rest of the advice appear as if it's archaeology rather than public service jobs worth. All it's saying to local authority whatso's is make up as much rubbish as you can like "heritage receptors" or heritage statement and find places to say significant without any evidence but all leading up to the supposed threat that there might actually be a field archaeologist involved. I don't see in what way it is relevant to me or any developer. Nppf para 128 says that the assets have to be considered for the decision making process. At the end of the day that's a case officer or a planning committee. In some cases it might be an inspector. It's got nothing to do with a "planning" advisor". My advice to all field archaeologists is to ignor them and deal directly with the planning authority. What this document wants to happen is for the whole process to go post application and hide in a "written scheme of works".

[Dinosaur]

...I have got one of these [a WSI] at the moment and whats really stupid about the wording is that the only thing that a field archaeologist can do when development takes place is a watching brief...I am losing the plot...

Yup, I'd imagine the 37 guys and gals we've got doing a major excavation on one site at the moment 18 months in to the construction phase of the development would agree with that last bit :p

[Marc Berger]

Let me guess charity unit, government are landowners, developers and development control?

[Dinosaur]

Charity??????? !

[Sikelgaita]

Nppf para 128 says that the assets have to be considered for the decision making process. At the end of the day that's a case officer or a planning committee. In some cases it might be an inspector. It's got nothing to do with a "planning" advisor".

And the planning officer or committee, not being archaeologists themselves will consult with their in house team of planning archaeologists. Your previously highlighted example of the site you prepared a Heritage Statement for and subsequently evaluated might have saved everyone's time and money if you had taken note of Heritage England's considerations of significance and the advice of the LPA archaeologists.

That said I am in no way saying that I agree with the HE and LPA arguments/decision in that example, or that I think that evaluation is not the most effective way of both assessing significance and providing the best way for field archaeologists to provide a reasonable estimate of risk (financial and temporal) to a developer.

[P Prentice]

tell us mark, when you blast your pre planning eval trench across the old ladys garden and she submits your copyrighted back of an envelope with her application, does she ever come back and say the planning authority has thrown away your envelope and has asked for a wsi approved by the planning authority etc etc? just wonderin.

[P Prentice]

Yup, I'd imagine the 37 guys and gals we've got doing a major excavation on one site at the moment 18 months in to the construction phase of the development would agree with that last bit :p

but i bet your directors are rubbing their hands as fast as their pockets are lined

[Marc Berger]

Sikalgaita

That said I am in no way saying that I agree with the HE and LPA arguments/decision in that example, or that I think that evaluation is not the most effective way of both assessing significance and providing the best way for field archaeologists to provide a reasonable estimate of risk (financial and temporal) to a developer.

yes they had lost the plot or rather what plot where they on. I gave up on the heritage statements thing after the dc said it was not good enough but the client submitted it anyway. The dc made me model it on one that had been produced which included all the wordings that they then got upset about. Both parties were going all out that their opinion was that there would be no development. What's interesting is that I have a similar case where I found more sigNificant archaeology but the development was approved and the dc has had written into the condition that I have to donate my archiv.e of the evaluation to them. Once the decision was approved they rang my client and told them not use me anymore. I informed the client that they should get somebody else because the dc would screw me with the wsi. That sites still ongoing but thanks for the interest.

Prentice as outlined to Sika, you spotted it, they still come up with the threat of more "assesment" with a wsi. What was interesting is that they then appear to have wimped out of excavation and gone down a watching brief route....But it still admits that the decision has not followed nppf para128. Which is where they now need to be kicked. Any ideas about when the "Nppf is not being adhered to" complaints. I don't think any clients would support an appeal to the committee or why should they, which government department issued nppf?