Many people (perhaps not) have a perception that archaeology is all about digging lovely sites.

Much of the archaeology that takes place in the UK today is based on the PPG16 principal and is part of the planning process.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144060

This means that much of the archaeology that happens today is designed to - not dig the archaeology - or to minimise the impact of developments - or to watch miles of pipeline trenches for the potential of archaeology.

This means that in many cases, the archaeology found is only where the developments are, and not where the known archaeology is. This can mean that most of the time, archaeologists are working in trenches with nothing in them…. Though it should be stressed that the reason they are there in the first place is because the Development Control archaeologist has reason to believe there may be.

I don’t want to go into too much depth just now, but if anyone is interested, I will respond further.

You could also look at this document
http://www.bajr.org/developerweb/planning.htm

Most of us are jealous of the Time Team because we just get to look into deep holes of nothingness… I once sent my best archaeologist out to watch a 30 mile trench go round an island…. 6 weeks later… 40” of rain… and not a sausage… even though he came close to some real good sites… (hence the watching brief). Broke his heart it did! On the flip side… on a similar type contract… up pops a Mesolithic site … made them smile..!

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
M
Much of the archaeology that takes place in the UK today is based on the PPG16 principal and is part of the planning process.
!

For UK - read ENGLAND

quote:

Originally posted by Nemesis:

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
M
Much of the archaeology that takes place in the UK today is based on the PPG16 principal and is part of the planning process.
!

For UK - read ENGLAND

The operative words being based on surely?

Anyway, enough nitpicking!

Ya got me there Nemesis...

As a Scottish DC archaeologist I use NPPG 5 and NPPG 18 as well as PAN 42...

thought it might confuse people. But you are quite right... though the principal is the same - which is why I said based on... (which Chris D spotted.. aaaaaaaaarg - and I thought I was retentive

Glad to see there are people who know the difference. ;-))

quote:

Originally posted by Chris D:

quote:

Originally posted by Nemesis:

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
M
Much of the archaeology that takes place in the UK today is based on the PPG16 principal and is part of the planning process.
!

For UK - read ENGLAND

The operative words being based on surely?

Spot on.

I'm glad it's not football and he's not the referee. Bless!

Certainly glad you are a not the commentator..

Does this interest you Chris..?

Hi David,

Forgive me if I've missed this, but I can't see where the developer needs to report new finds of national importance to EH so they can decide wether to schedule or not.

"It should be stressed however that mitigation is not appropriate where significant archaeological remains are known to exist within a proposed development."

I know at least one County Archaeologist and a few developer archaeologists that would challenge this statement. I like it.

Is there an IFA angle that you need to mention?

My understanding is that Archaeologists working to the IFA code of conduct have an additional duty of care regarding archaeology, I think this should be mentioned.

What about the old scenario of not knowing what the archaeology is until lab results come in, but the developer wants to move forward with the devlopment? How should this be handled?

Following on from my first point, I found this:

"In exceptional circumstances, the scheme as proposed should not proceed, as it would be detrimental to a previously unknown nationally significant archaeological monument."

I think there should be guidance as to how to judge significance, if you believe that a site may be of national significance then EH need to be informed and involved in the new plan of works.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris W.:

quote:

Originally posted by Chris D:

quote:

Originally posted by Nemesis:

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
M
Much of the archaeology that takes place in the UK today is based on the PPG16 principal and is part of the planning process.
!

For UK - read ENGLAND

The operative words being based on surely?

Spot on.

I'm glad it's not football and he's not the referee. Bless!

You seem unaware that, even prior to Devolution, Wales and Scotland had their own policy documents (Iro Wales Circular 60/96). Scotland also had its own legislation.

quote:

Forgive me if I've missed this, but I can't see where the developer needs to report new finds of national importance to EH so they can decide wether to schedule or not.

I all depends on the wording of the specifications and/or the individual council planning department conditions.. remember that archaeology in Development Control (DC) is advisory and does not actually extend to Scheduled sites... thats where EH, CADW, HS come in..

(a good link to understand it all is this document from Ireland,,,Archaeology & Development: Guidelines for Good Practice for Developers)
http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/developers/p3.html


It is often advised that the for example

quote:

The benefit of early consultation and archaeological advice is that the developer can investigate and plan for archaeological risks. Despite the most careful and considered research there will always be a risk of unexpected discoveries. PPG16 (new window) suggests that in this event voluntary discussion between developers and archaeologists should enable a satisfactory compromise to be reached. We would encourage the reporting of unexpected discoveries to us so that we can help reach a solution.

As you can see (and the same is true in Scotland) the reporting of unexpected discoveries (unless they are human remains) is not required and is voluntary... at this point the developer is not obliged to do anything as it is not a pre-requisite of the planning condition. It all depends on the site having conditions placed on it prior to planning permisssion being granted OR... a pre- application condition that is dependant on the archaeology uncovered (ie... if there is lots, then on grounds of archaeology, the planning application is refused)

Note that planners have to take into consideration several (and often conflicting) potentials... so if the archaeology is outweighed by other factors.... its cheery bye to the site.

quote:

"It should be stressed however that mitigation is not appropriate where significant archaeological remains are known to exist within a proposed development."

I know at least one County Archaeologist and a few developer archaeologists that would challenge this statement. I like it.

well spotted, at how weak the wording is... I think you are being unduely harsh upon the CA.. We can only do what we can do... and often are forced into a best we can do under the circumstances...

presently I am in a similar situation ... and I could stamp my feet as much as I like but at the end of teh day ... I will accept 10% excavation of a site (voluntary by developer) rather than get nothing... which he would be legally entitled to do.

I should point out I only know how it works in Scotland.. but HS can't get overly involved in live applications (unless exceptional conditions arise)

quote:

My understanding is that Archaeologists working to the IFA code of conduct have an additional duty of care regarding archaeology, I think this should be mentioned.

What about the old scenario of not knowing what the archaeology is until lab results come in, but the developer wants to move forward with the devlopment? How should this be handled?

These are two questions that vex archaeologists...

The IFA have several codes of conduct... if a company is an RAO or a MIFA/AIFA etc... then a complaint can be made, dealing with specific actions... fell free to contact the IFA.

As to knowing what the site is before the results are in..... there are interim reports which allow an informed descision to be made... and to decide the scope and nature of teh post ex (often costing more than the fieldwork - so the devloper is paying for that too) It may be dependant on conditions.

It is tricky to be site specific... as

a) it is unfair to comment directly on another CAs work/county
b) We all do things a bit different (though from the same guidance -- roughly)
c) It is a unique site..

So you are saying that while PPG16 reserved the right to schedule newly discovered archaeology, in actual fact, there is no mechanism to inform EH of this, unless the developer wants that archaeology scheduled....

I do not think I am being unfair to a CA by saying I know one that would challenge that, the line only says significant archaeology, which in itself is completely open to interpretation, and I would suggest that it would cover archaeology of both local or national significance.

But how would I as a developer decide that archaeology I had discovered was significant? We know very well that conflicts can arrise, UKGOV refused to provide clarification of how to interpret this term when I asked them to, I was hoping you might kick this off. After all, if we cannot agree on the significance, and there is not a clear set of guidelines, how would the document work?

In a way.

quote:

Inclusion of new monuments on the schedule is at the Secretary of State's discretion, although monuments added to it must be of national importance.

quote:

The Secretary of State is required to consult English Heritage before adding to the schedule or removing monuments from it. In practice, most proposals for scheduling originate with English Heritage, some at the request of local authorities or amenity groups, but the decision rests with the Secretary of State.

As I said, this is a general topic on development control.. the problem is interpretation... and although we have reasonable guidance, it can be very much up to the DC archaeologist and/or the CA. You see many departments have both.. (just to make it confusing).

To decide whether or not a site (or landscape) is of national importance rests in the end with the Secretary of State (in England). Who recieves advice from EH.

The trouble is defining it.... for example

A WWII pillbox (worth scheduling/listing?)
A WWII pillbox which spotted the first german aircraft in Britain (worth scheduling/listing?)
A WWII pillbox which is part of a group of other structures that make up a well known site (ie Biggin Hill) (worth scheduling/listing?)
A WWII pillbox - the last one still standing (worth scheduling/listing?)

we had similar problems with blackhouses in Scotland... when we did have thousands of them... and only when we had a few left did we panic and protect them...

How to decide is being thought about... rarity, preservation, local importance, regional or national importance... (you may have noticed a big upset in SCotland a couple of years back when the SAMs were re-examined and hundreds will be 'dumped'... of course more will be added

perhaps England nees a document like this... if anyone knows if EH does... please let me know.

http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/shep2.pdf

A good line from this document is

quote:

For most of Britain’s and Scotland’s
past, there are no ‘national’ prehistories or
histories, as reflected in the built heritage.
Instead, there is an aggregation of related
prehistories and histories of different regions,
which may have wider national or
international links. It is through these linked
regional histories and prehistories that the
history of Scotland and the UK can be
understood.

We have to understand and quantify (but add a dash of heartfelt feeling) the Cultural Significance of a site.

Intrinsic – those inherent in the monument;

Contextual – those relating to the
monument’s place in the landscape or in the
body of existing knowledge; and

Associative – more subjective assessments of
the associations of the monument, including
with current or past aesthetic preferences.

As you can see.. it ain't easy being a county developemnt control archaeologist... we very rarely get to dig trenches hardly ever get recognised for what exactly we do.. and are tasked with an impossible task with inadequate tools... But hey.... I'm not complaining.

;-))

In order for a decision to be made, the archaeological remains needs to be brought to the attention of the proper authorities. The decision to schedule is theirs. But the decision to tell them about it is the developers, it should therefore be included as an item in the document?

The issues with recognising what is significant could be best shown in a few practical examples, designed to illustrate the issues you have given? These need not form a part of your main document, but I think many would welcome the additional guidance - significance is at the heart of deciding how best to deal with the archaeology, if a reader is uncertain of that, they are unlikley to be able to apply it to a given scenario.

Do archaeologists get training on these types of issues?

On a construction site in the middle of Cardiff I was told that if anything archaeological was found it would have been covered in concrete in the blink of an eye.

They are already behind schedule.

quote:

Originally posted by AJ ap:
On a construction site in the middle of Cardiff I was told that if anything archaeological was found it would have been covered in concrete in the blink of an eye.

They are already behind schedule.

Presumably, if the DC archaeologist in the planning dept had done there job properly, an archaeological condition would have been put on at the planning stage? Or is Welsh law different in that respect?

quote:

Do archaeologists get training on these types of issues?

That depends on what sort of archaeologist you are talking about..

not being smart here... promise.. but there are several flavours of archaeologist (bit like doctors.. just not paid as well.! - So you would not ask a gynacologist to treat an earache.. though they might know the basic principal)

If you mean a DC archaeologist... ... yes they would know...

but they are not the only ones involved in teh process and it all matters about what has been agreed in the application conditions, and whether there is a pre-application criteria to be met.

Should have said that Chris answered the Cardiff Question... (if teh site had not been subject to any archaeolgoical conditions.. then it may happen... but unlikely) I am not saying it does not happen... but mainly with unexpected finds... and even then I have had reports... the last one was after a full evaluation... then a detectorist I knew saw bones in a foundation trench... by bizarre luck he had spotted the only archaeology on a 5 hectare site... a single medieval burial...

The archaeolgoists went back out... recovered and did more work... not a peep..... it looks now that "we" have uncovered a medieval murder.... the developer was not held up for one minute either...

quote:

Originally posted by Venutius:
So you are saying that while PPG16 reserved the right to schedule newly discovered archaeology, in actual fact, there is no mechanism to inform EH of this, unless the developer wants that archaeology scheduled....

unless it has been made a condition on the grant of pp, there is no requirement to notify anyone of archaeological finds (as opposed to 'stiffs'?). There is no incentive to notify as this will lead to long delays and increased costs. Whilst it is the case that compensation would be payable if smc was subsequently refused - not all the developer's costs would be recoverable. and certainly not his expected profit.

There is no incentive to schedule as this would give rise to a compensation claim were smc subsequently to be refused.

quite right there...

which is one problem in dc work.

However (for eaxample) - the Groundwell Ridge site was saved, compensated and scheduled. But it was pretty unique -

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:

However (for eaxample) - the Groundwell Ridge site was saved, compensated and scheduled. But it was pretty unique -

Was compensation paid for refusal of smc? Or was the site simply purchased from the developer?

it was scheduled after....(as far as I know....)

so it was purchased.. by EH and Swindon.

but it was found by a local... as it was prior to Swindon having a Service Level Agreement on archaeological advice.