quote:

Originally posted by Nemesis:
I don't know of any cases where a site has been scheduled after pp had been granted.

That is certainly the case at Groundwell. Robert Hitchen could have continued developing the site as previously ther had been nothing recorded on the SMR of the site although apparently some stuff had been found by an individual.

Thanks for clearing that up..

This is where I got confused, as I thought that Swindon had no Archaeological Planning Advice at teh time it was found - which would explain why no pre development evaluation had been placed on the site. (of course if nothing was known in this area previously - then there would be little reason to place conditions of evaluation)

Was Roy called in after the site was found.. (which is my impression) or did he just happen to be there.. in which case it sounds like a monitoring visit..

This handily leads to another important task for teh DC archaeologist... the monitoring visit... to check work has not begun before archaeological work has started (oh, sorry... I was just clearing teh ground for you ;-) or... oooops... ah well, too late now.. ;-))


and to ensure that the archaeological contractor is carrying out the works to the specifications.

You can (and I have in the past month) be informed about new sites... though this is more for the County "mountie" or the SMR/HER officer


As I say... a good smr is a happy DC archaeologist.

I am even more hapy that we are getting data the actual shape of the site, instead of just a dot on the map. It also means that a DC must know there county intimately...

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
which would explain why no pre development evaluation had been placed on the site. (of course if nothing was known in this area previously - then there would be little reason to place conditions of evaluation)

Things were known, and indeed found apparently, on in the area of the 2 fields involved but because nothing had been recorded on the SMR no archaeological evaluation was deemed neccessary. This shows the value of recording finds that are not nessarily treasure. The site itself was a treasure.

That’s a message which has to be made to everyone in society. Though I think the reason their was no evaluation was because Swindon had no archaeological advice..
Though I may be wrong... perhaps Wiltshire was looking at the planning for Swindon at that time
- I think it was at a point in between -

--- Thanks for this input on Groundwell.. (Perhaps enough has been said about it now) -

It is a very unique site in development control terms. (though when I became the archaeologist for Midlothian, it had no DC input… (or SMR) and so I had also had to start from scratch in the county. So very similar in some ways… sadly I lost some sites… not all developers are as public spirited)

The roles of DC, CA, SMR and Contractor, and how they interface with the Planning Department (or Strategic Services) is often lumped into one big.... 'archaeologists' and "developers"....

it could be interesting to see how many people understand this process.. (After I talked about it on Saturday to teh Lothian COnference.. some govt folk, contractors and public came up and went.... " ah... so thats what you do!")

So I think we need to explain ourselves better...

perhaps I am not teh best for the task though ;-))

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
That’s a message which has to be made to everyone in society. Though I think the reason their was no evaluation was because Swindon had no archaeological advice..

I think it had more to do with no archaeological evidence being recorded on the SMR for the site even though there were apparently finds.

I will ask about that... as it is obviously of interest..

If there were obviously finds... then it was obviously known about...

Do you know whetehr or not there was a DC Archaeologist working on planning application?


This is my method.. (I stress it is my method)

I check the weekly list >
I flag the potentials >
I check these on the GIS system, maps, APs, known sites... etc>
I request consultation>
I recieve plans and decide whether the work will impact on the potential for archaeology (or will impact on a known site)>
I write a specification on what I would require (or say no further action or refuse on archaeological grounds)>
I write a sentancve for inclusion in teh conditions>
I hope that the planner adds the condition>
I send full specs. out to contractors who have been contacted by the developer.>
I recieve a Written Scheme of Investigation from teh COntractor, detailing the methods they will use to fulfil the criteria set in my specifications>
I approve (or reject) the WSI
I monitor the work on site.........

More later.... ! I am working tooo late!

When you are confronted with a white SMR for a possible site for development, what can you do?

Like I have said before - you can't invent the archaeology, but as archaeology had been discovered on the site BUT NOT RECORDED, the archaeology found could not be known about by the relevant people.

Surely this is not too difficult to understand, is it???

Quote quentin

''but as archaeology had been discovered on the site BUT NOT RECORDED''

Like what exactly,and not recorded by whome?
km.

Chris.

Try to be a bit less aggressive please.

I think we have established that 'blanl areas in SMR/HERs are problematic for development control.

I don't think we have to labour the point further. I do understand the point, thank you.

The nature of DC archaeology deal with more than jsut known sites though. - However... just to make you happy - if sites are suspected, it is essential to let people like me or the SMR know about it as quickly as possible. A procedure I am indeed working on/promote.

So PPG16 says that the gov has the right to schedule a newly discovered site, and also the Planning Authority can withdraw permission if archaeology of national importance is found, but in actual fact, nobody bothers with that, so we don't need to include it in a guideline about PPG16?

BAJR, could you explain what is involved in getting a site scheduled please ?
I was under the impression that it was quite a lengthy process.

quote:

Originally posted by Tetricus:
BAJR, could you explain what is involved in getting a site scheduled please ?
I was under the impression that it was quite a lengthy process.

EH decide whether to advise Secretary of State (DCMS) to add the site to the schedule, normally after being called in by the local archaeological curator.

A more interesting question is why it was decided to schedule Grounwell Ridge, spending public money on a site which offers no unique value and represents the type of site which would normally be excavated in advance of development or preserved in-situ. I understand that there was no evaluation as part of the planning application so there was no legal requirement on the developer but there wasn't even an evaluation by EH prior to spending the money! I know I'm going to get replies which say I don't seem to care about archaeology but in fact its just that I see sites far more significant and under threat every couple of months and EH don't generally come in and spend money. In the end the Groundwell site is a small Roman Villa with no particular national significance (to have national significance it has to conform to a set of criteria and generally be in someway unique or in a very high state of preservation). You can find many examples of villas like this in the South-West not scheduled but under threat from uncontrolled ploughing many which have in-situ high quality mosaics etc and are far better preserved. Perhaps the fact that EH have decided that it is a "Beacon project" i.e. they can get loads of PR out off the back of the community excavations has more to do with the decision?

quote:

Originally posted by Tetricus:
BAJR, could you explain what is involved in getting a site scheduled please ?
I was under the impression that it was quite a lengthy process.

Ah, I found some info here
Information

phew.... however I have jsut put this together.... ! So you can jolly well read it

The actual process is as follows (in Scotland) - so very similar to England
The monument could be suggested by an individual, a county officer (perhaps after an evaluation) or through one of the many heritage audits.

1. The first step in considering whether a monument is of national importance is to identify and understand its cultural significance.
2. This is followed by an assessment of the Cultural Significance, which is related to its artistic, archaeological, architectural, historic, traditional, aesthetic, scientific and social value and or potential (for the future).
3. Then these factors are brought in: what does the monument have intrinsically? (ie, inherent in the monument) how does it relate to the wider landscape? Does it form part of a ‘whole’ and how does it play its part in this. - this is termed… associative, and deal with more subjective concepts such as aesthetics… - For example… a Standing stone on a moor is more likely to get a higher score as it has an aesthetic solitary beauty rather than one on a roundabout half obscured by bad planting in the middle of a new town.
4. The primary purpose of scheduling is preservation of a site of national importance – and it is deemed to be in the national interest.
5. It has to remembered that national importance does not place one period of the past above another.. and also takes into consideration that current boundaries do not make sense in the past.. So the monument can be looked at on a local, regional or UK wide level. (The fortunate thing about being an island is that we have clearly defined borders for the UK as a whole.- unlike Europe for example, where the blurred boundaries stretch off in all directions)
6. Once all these considerations have been made… and this could take some time… then a decision is made on Scheduling. I have to say that the re-evaluation of the process in Scotland (at least) has taken some of the ‘fluffiness’ out of the equation.

The actual process is like this:

Either HS /EH/CADW review sites for inclusion or a site is highlighted by a council archaeologist or even member of the public.

It is considered for inclusion on the list and must achieve strict criteria.

The scheduling of the site can be instant in very rare cases, but normally takes a few months.

If someone found a Roman road in the Cotswolds for example it would not be as important as a roman road in Scotland (almost all Roman in Scotland is Scheduled as a matter of course due to rarity) If we had hundreds of them, then only the best would be scheduled, and the rest would be protected by the County Archaeology service. Scheduling is the highest form of protection, and so has to be justified at the highest level, so if it is scheduled, then there is a good reason for it… it is no longer done lightly.



This description from Wikipedia describes the concept of Scheduling very well;

In England the Department for Culture, Media and Sport keeps a register, or schedule, of nationally important sites which receive state protection. This process was first devolved to Scotland and Wales in the 1970s and is now operated by the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government. The three government bodies with responsibility for archaeology and the historic environment in Britain are: English Heritage in England, Cadw in Wales, Historic Scotland in Scotland. The Northern Irish system is governed by separate legislation, and is operated by the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland.

A long list of criteria is used to decide whether an Ancient Monument should become a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Scheduling affords greater protection as it becomes illegal to in any way tamper with a designated area. The Scottish Criteria have recently been revised.
To be eligible for scheduling, a monument must be demonstrably of national significance according to a number of specific criteria. These are (in England and Wales):
· Period – meaning the length of time it remained in use, significant sites are often multi-period
· Rarity – monuments with few known comparators are more likely to be scheduled
· Documentation – information from earlier investigations at a site can inform on its significance
· Group value – where a monument forms part of a wider geographical landscape of important sites
· Survival/Condition – the degree to which the surviving remains convey the size, shape and function of the site
· Fragility/Vulnerability – threats to the site from natural agencies, tourism or development can lead to a monument being scheduled for its protection
· Representivity – how well the monument represents diverse similar types and/or whether it contains unique features
· Potential – its ability to contribute to our knowledge through further study
There is no appeal against the scheduling process and adding a monument to the register is normally a process requiring a great deal of research and consideration. The process can be accelerated for sites under threat however. The heritage bodies gather information on a site, define a boundary around it and advise the Secretary of State (or her devolved equivalent) of its eligibility for inclusion on the schedule.
Protection can be given by taking the monument into state ownership or placing under guardianship, the latter meaning that the owner retains possession with an undertaking to look after it. Field Monument Wardens monitor sites to ensure they are not being damaged. Wider areas can be protected by designating their locations as Areas of Archaeological Importance. As of 2004 only five city centres, all in England, have been designated AAIs (Canterbury, Chester, Exeter, Hereford and York). This part of the 1979 Act was never brought into effect in Scotland.
Damage to a Scheduled monument is a criminal offence and any works taking place within one require Scheduled Monument Consent from the Secretary of State or her devolved equivalent. Permission for non-essential development is rarely given and new building close to a scheduled monument which might damage its setting is also strongly discouraged.
The Scheduling system is criticised by some as being cumbersome. Until recently it had a limited definition of what constitutes a monument and ritual landscapes, flint scatters or underwater sites were difficult to Schedule, although three maritime sites have been designated as scheduled ancient monuments.

I think that just about covers everything, thanks.

Its a sad fact about the protection system that what sounds OK on paper doesn't necessarily reflect what happens on the ground. In this case for instance, EH have simply stopped scheduling things at present.

I fear there are a lot of occasions where we collectively tick the box but don't walk the walk.

I was not aware of this,

I was under the impression that like HS they were reviewing teh entire system and were going through the 18,000 SAMs to ensure that those that need removed - are removed and those that need added are added.. the final total is estimated to be around 30,000 sites.

I was under the impression they were scheduling some 1200 new sites a year - and are working on WW2 and 20th century just now.

I don't think they have stopped scheduling.... though of course I could be wrong.

Certainly EH have said they have no intention of scheduling any archaeology found around Thornborough. They have also said their preference is not to schedule anything, which I guess on the one hand is a nice ideal (no need to schedule because society protects them anyway), but in reality means important archaeology is being lost, as EH will confirm at Thornborough.

Thanks for that Venutius

As you can see from the above extracts on the nature of scheduling... The monuments themselves are already SAMS - extending the area of scheduling is another matter - a case for this can only be made if the landscape itself imparts quantifiably to the setting or is shown to be integral to the meaning of the monument. (having been there I personally would have loved to see more ‘management’ of the site. – even more signposts! It could be argued that the landscape that now surrounds the site is not the same landscape that surrounded it when it was an active monument and therefore bears no relevance to the monument – it could also be argued that the quarrying and replacement of the landscape would not alter the ‘landscape setting’ any more than it is now.

That however (and thankfully for me) is not my decision - Like Groundwell, Thornborough is another unique case. I am trying to be more general in this thread… as it is not easy to make statements about particular cases without having the full casework to hand.

Look at the above statements, consider how the wider landscape ‘fits’ into these criteria.

It is very difficult to be in a govt or local govt agency, as we end up being relied upon to perform backflips, but also harangued if we don’t do a double backflip. Sometimes justified, sometimes not. It can feel a bit like being punched in the face, and asked for help and a loan at the same time…

Anyway, back to the point we were discussing. PPG16 says that new sites can be scheduled. Surely your guide should indicate that there are circumstances when this happens and that there is a responsiblity on the developer to recognise significant archaeology and report it so that the opportunity required by PPG16 is delivered?

The guide – by definition is a short guide, designed not be be a huge and hulking tome that nobody reads. - It does reference the relevant guidance documents – in each of the UK countries. I could add many many things to the document. – and I guess that was such a rare occurrence as to not warrant inclusion in such a general document. In broad terms I feel it is covered in these.


· No further archaeological measures are necessary

· The need to conserve the archaeological features uncovered requires the proposed development to be revised so as to minimise impact.

· A further more detailed scheme of full archaeological investigation will be necessary prior to, or during, the proposed works.

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

However I could add another point that reminds a developer that if they uncover archaeology they have a responsibility to report it (though they could wonder what the incentive is)

How about this. -

quote:

In exceptional circumstances, although you have received full planning consent, and all previous conditions are met, if you were to uncover archaeology of national importance, you should recognise and report it to the council archaeology service, to all the site to be appraised, and a proposal for mitigation put in place. In some rare cases, this may mean the site will be scheduled and no further development will be allowed.

How about:

"In exceptional circumstances, although you have received full planning consent, and all previous conditions are met, if you were to uncover archaeology of national importance, you should recognise and report it to the planning authority archaeology service, so the site can be appraised, and a proposal for mitigation put in place. In some rare cases, this may mean the site will be scheduled and no further development will be allowed."

H

was that a yes?