Is it an Arched trench or a very smelly wet church. Blame the Aussies

[Marc Berger]

Hosty I email the tender people they are very open about it still not being available. Last Week they said somebody was going off the see Oxford and find out what was happening.

[Marc Berger]

On Fri, 10/6/16, xxxxxxx@HistoricEngland.org.uk> wrote:

Subject: Assessing the impact of trench arch drainage systems on archaeological remains in churchyards PN 7063
To: "MARC BERGER"
Cc: "xxxxxxxx" xxxxxx@HistoricEngland.org.uk>
Date: Friday, 10 June, 2016, 11:36

Dear Marc,

This project is not yet completed, our Historic England Project Assurance Officer will meet with Oxford next week so we will hear more about progress then. I will not be working in the team from Tuesday so I have copied xxxxxxxx in who will be able to help you in the future.

All the best, xxxxxx.

vvxvxvx
Procurement Manager
xxxx@historicengland.org.uk

[Dinosaur]

Sounds like you've been palmed-off onto another unsuspecting... }

[Marc Berger]

XXXXX,XXXXXX<XXXXX.XXXX@HistoricEngland.org.uk>

13 Sep at 3:04 PM

To MARK BURGER


Message body

Hi Mark

Thank you for your email.

The final version of the report is not available as yet I am afraid. We anticipate that it should be going up on the website within the next month or so.

My advice would be to check on the website over the coming weeks.

Thankyou

XXX


XXXXXX.XXXXX

Business Support Officer - Commissions
Research Group
Historic England Room 3/60 The Engine House Fire Fly Avenue Swindon SN2 2EH
Direct Dial: xxxxxxx or Mobile: xxxxxxxx

[Dinosaur]

At least they're consistent :face-approve:

[Marc Berger]

slippier than an eel but nice to see that people have less shame than me and I look up at snakes bellies.

[Marc Berger]

https://library.thehumanjourney.net/87/1/KIRTMV08.pdf

yes folks this is a watching brief in a church yard. At what point would you have said that the watching brief was over and that you did not have resources or contingency to excavate the site fully and so make the cheap trench arch option more like the end of the Church of England's pension fund?

Some quiz questions on Oxfords report:

Question 1: Figure 4: Sections 1 and 2, where is figure 1 in the plans?

Question 2: Figure 4: Sections 1 and 2 how deep were the sections?

Question 3: After you pour raw human sewage into the trench what immediate effect will there be on the archaeology?

Question 4: In table 1 does "Completeness" and "Condition" relate to the whole skeleton?

Question 5: What are charnel deposits?

Question 6: How many Skeletons were encountered in this watching brief?

Question 7: Would a unit that considers the excavation of any skeleton in a watching brief adequate by breaking the bones off at the baulk when financially employed by an organisation that has control over its own planning permissions and that is flogging "trench Arch" as the cheapest option, to be an unbiased unit to produce this report?:

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-bo...urchyards/

[Marc Berger]

And now the government / Environment agency have approved Trench Arch:

https://www.gov.uk/permits-you-need-for-...s/overview

[Marc Berger]

Current state of pooing on skellies with an occasional watching brief

Dear Mr Berger,

Thank you for your interest in this research project.

As you indicate, the executive summary of the report suggests that further work should be undertaken and best practice advice produced. It is currently our view at Historic England that this additional work could usefully be concluded before detailed best practice advice is written.

In the meantime, the Forward to the report written by Historic England staff makes the following recommendations for those considering Trench Arch Drainage in churchyards.

· Wherever feasible, it is preferable to connect to mains drains if these are available, although making this connection may also have archaeological implications.

· If a trench arch drainage system is proposed, an archaeological assessment of the potential of the churchyard needs to be undertaken at an early stage in developing the project so that the information it reveals can be taken into account in developing the specification.

· The assessment should consider whether archaeological fieldwork, such as evaluation is necessary before permission is granted or works begin.

· Trench arch drains should be located away from archaeologically sensitive areas of the church. Such avoidance is made possible by understanding the archaeological potential of the site.

· It should not be assumed that significant archaeological remains will not be encountered within the top 0.5m, just because this is above current burial depth

We feel that these recommendations represent an appropriate balance between responding to the information provided by the research project, whilst recognising that as a technique, these low-cost drainage systems can play a key role in enhancing the long-term sustainability of the churches in which they are installed.

I hope this answers your questions.

Best Wishes.

Not a single trench arch has remained above 0.5m, not a single "assessment" exists, not a single trench arch has had an archaeological field Evaluation, all the trench arches described in the report were "non" standard (is it because there is no standard). What has archaeology got to do with the long-term sustainability of the churches? Not a single affordable house for a small family would be allowed to have this pile of poo system in its garden. Just what laws of drainage can move poo thirty metres keeping within a depth of 0.5 metres (which in the report is said should be 400mm). Just where do you find this type of slope in a church yard ........

[Marc Berger]

The trench arc contamination spreads to being a mitigation stratergy


Would anybody know how much the church paid for the archaeology work done at St Mary the Virgin, Oxfordshire?