Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should an archaeologist recommend a development in the planning application comments
GnomeKing Wrote:- if you want to price an excavation you need an evaluation...

that, my good sire, is HIGHLY debatable > as i have ranted on about several times before ...

> if fact, the original 1994 EU funded review of evaluations as a survey method and 'predictor' for excavations , highlighted problems i have found to be rather common.

>evaluation trenches are poor predictors of a wide range of archaeology, particularly prehistory.

The problem lies in trying to 'cost-it-all-up before' anybody really knows whats there...
Instead of 'the most sophisticated prediction methods', the focus should just be on dealing with what actually exists, using the best methods, and people, appropriate to the task.

There is no way round it - the archaeology is what it is, and there is nothing anybody can do to alter what is already buried, no matter the sophistication of the predictions.

Clients need to be given a price model based on the necessity of addressing whatever (and that is a very long whatever) heritage is there, and the unpredictable nature of any potential archaeology > evaluations help narrow this, and have some other particular uses > but as predictors of 'total archaeology' they are not great, and our reliance on them is not necessarily a good thing for British archaeology (they tend ,IMHO, to underplay archaeology, and thus downsize tenders, thus put huge pressure on contractor when 'there-is-a-bit-more-here-than-we-thought-gov'

[Where significant excavation work is required the UpdatedPojectDesign, based on for example significantly complete site plans, (should) step in anyway ... ]

However the focus should remain on dealing with what is actually there, as it is found, in acceptable manner -sometimes this is unpredictabley expensive until work has begun - this is a risk like any other for capital invested in a development.

Spot on Gnomey. Evaluation by trial trenching is only useful if you put the trenches in the right place.

Try saying to a client....'Well we did 170 trial trenches along your pipeline cost you xxxx, but found no archaeology. Now that doesn't mean there is no archaeology so we need a watching brief on your topsoil strip, which will cost xx, but of course when we find a site it will cost whatever it costs!'

Client, 'well if thats the case, why the hell did we pay you to dig all those trenches?'

How do you know where to put your trenches if you haven't assessed the likelyhood of their being any archaeology and where it is likely to be?

Messages In This Thread

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What would eh know about buying land for development? Marc Berger 15 12,810 15th July 2017, 01:37 PM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  How can adequate development planning occur when... GnomeKing 2 4,394 10th July 2017, 12:20 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  General permitted development rights consultation historic building 28 18,556 17th October 2015, 08:27 PM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  short course in planning and heritage ? BAJR 1 1,897 7th November 2014, 06:09 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. Marc Berger 57 16,853 30th May 2014, 10:32 PM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  Single Context Planning and GIS.. BAJR 1 1,835 6th April 2014, 09:02 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Contninuing Professional Development Log Wax 19 9,077 10th January 2014, 02:03 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  How to be a Victorian Archaeologist :) BAJR 4 2,664 24th December 2013, 07:07 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  Development next to the Prittlewell burial site redexile 10 6,410 1st November 2013, 01:05 PM
Last Post: Kajemby
  Planning Permission to be relaxed (again) VGC 14 6,715 25th March 2013, 09:49 AM
Last Post: Dinosaur

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)