Archaeology in the planning process Steve Baker Development Control Archaeologist, Derbyshire County...
-
Upload
marsha-wilson -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Archaeology in the planning process Steve Baker Development Control Archaeologist, Derbyshire County...
Archaeology in the planning process
Steve BakerDevelopment Control Archaeologist, Derbyshire County Council
Minster Lovell Hall, Oxon
What is archaeology?
“The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence” (Free Online Dictionary)
• Below-ground remains• Earthworks
• Built heritage
• Material culture
• Palaeo-environment•Known and unknown
Legislation and planning policy
• Scheduled Monuments (Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act
1979); 4% of Derbyshire assets are scheduled
• PPG16 (1990)“Polluter pays” principle: archaeology as a finite non-renewable
resourceUse of planning conditions/Section 106 agreements: developer
fundingPreservation in situ or preservation by record
• PPS5 (2010)“Heritage value” approach – understanding significanceIncreased focus on plan-making and pre-applicationAll “heritage assets” are a material considerationPrinciple of proportionalityWeighing loss of significance against public benefit
• NPPF (2012?)
What does archaeology look like in the planning process?
• Staged approach – proportionality
• Identifying potential – do we need to do anything at all?
• Desk-based assessment Buildings appraisal
• Evaluation – non-intrusive GeophysicsFieldwalkingLiDAREarthwork survey
• Evaluation – trial trenching• What next?
Preservation in situExcavationControlled strip or watching
briefNothing!
Image courtesy of ArcHeritage
Key considerations
• Local planning authorities need specialist advice and HER• Identifying archaeological potential – known and unknown
Historic Environment RecordHistoric maps, geology, landforms, past settlement patterns,
field patterns, Regional Research Agenda, Historic Landscape Character
• How much is required pre-application? Need to understand significance and impact; Presumption that hitherto unknown archaeology is identified
pre-appNeed for proportionalityQuestion of balance – smart evaluation
• Appropriate recording methodologiesUsing information from desk-based studies and evaluation to
recommend the most appropriate and proportionate scheme
Case study 1: Foston, South Derbyshire
Anne Bronte’s grave, Scarborough
Images courtesy of University of Leicester Archaeological Services
Major 21ha pig farm and biogas application (not yet determined)
Ploughed site in Trent Valley – sands and gravels
Archaeological interest – HER site for cropmarks; likely prehistoric date
Desk-based assessment – refined cropmark plots and discounted others
Pre-app evaluation necessary to characterise archaeology – phased process
•Geophysics
•Limited trial trenching to validate
Case study 1: Foston, South Derbyshire
Results of DBA and evaluation process:
• Middle Bronze Age and probable Romano-British landscape
• Funerary monuments with cremations
• Field system• Monuments focused on low ridge• Some cropmarks not
archaeological• Archaeological features truncated
by ploughing
Recommendation for conditioned approach to remainder of archaeology
• Open area excavation over ring ditches
• Strip-and-record during groundworks
Lydiard Church, Swindon
‘Smart’ phased DBA and evaluation work reduced pre-app burden for applicant – early engagement critical
Case study 2: Waterswallows, Buxton
Scarborough
21ha application for new bottling plant
‘Improved’ limestone moorland
No HER records – archaeological potential identified through consultation on planning application
• Proximity of ‘Bullring’ henge
• Proximity of Roman roads
•Topography/geological position
Desk-based assessment highlighted likely impact of recent quarrying
Recommendation to defer further archaeological response as conditioned scheme
Case study 2: Waterswallows, Buxton
Trial trenching evaluation (28 trenches)
Large numbers of archaeological features and finds – high significance
Archaeology caused disruption to site programme
Combination of preservation in situ and area excavation
Late Mesolithic-early Neolithic activity (c5500-3000BC). Rare structural evidence – early Neolithic longhouse
Earlier engagement would have enabled better planning of archaeological programmeImages courtesy of ArcHeritage
Case study 3 – ‘The Old Barn’, Dronfield
Monkwearmouth Church
Application to convert Grade II* building for community use
18th century stone barn with timber frame dating around 1450 – possibly site of medieval manor house
Proposals include sub-floor excavations for underfloor heating
Small-scale pre-app evaluation – test pits
Evidence for post-medieval floors and wall footings
Original medieval beaten-earth floor?Images courtesy of Archaeological Research Services Ltd
Case study 3 – ‘The Old Barn’, Dronfield
Dale St, Liverpool
Conditioned archaeological work:
Full building survey
Archaeological work in area of medieval remains
Opportunities for community involvement
Conclusions
•Phased process – identification, evaluation, recording/preservation
•Identification of potential sites draws on a wealth of background evidence
•Massive range of potential tools and techniques available
•Essential that LPAs have expert advice and access to HER
•Ideally the identification and evaluation stages should happen pre-application
•Early engagement is crucial