31st May 2006, 02:01 PM
When SMS first appeared it was used in situations where preservation in situ was almost impossible to achieve under any circumstances - mainly new railways and heavily constrained road schemes, (?Terminal 5). In these situations the use of extensive prior evaluation could not be used to identify sites that would require preservation in situ sites, and any evaluation was primarily aimed at reaching a position whereby the cost of dealing with the archaeology could be reasonably assessed. It seemd as though there was a pay-off here - if the developer could not achieve preservation in situ, then it would be necessary to expose and record as much as possible of what was actually there. The advantage form an archaeological perspective is that whole site plans could be recovered, and there would be no requirment for a watching breif as the main contractor let rip with a load of 50 ton 360s and box scrapers.
On the occasions when I was involved in SMS at that time, EH were quite opposed to it as they saw it as lying outside procedures identified in PPG16.
As it has spread into other types of development site, it has evolved into a hybrid beast - half evaluation, half excavation. In some circumstances it should be seen as a useful tool in the armoury of methodologies - eg road schemes where there has been no right of access for adequate evaluation - and still retains advantages over a watching brief in terms of final phase mitigation. However, it should not be used as an alternative to an adequate pre-determination evaluation where this is feasible and appropriate - we are still working to PPG16, whatever our individual views, and should remember the presumption of preservation in situ for remains of national significance. If evaluation is inadequate or non-existent, then going into a consented scheme with SMS as the mitigation assumes that the development will go ahead as planned regardlees of the nature and significance of the archaeological remains encountered.
SMS is also more difficlt to cost from a contractors point of view - going in with a capped sum hardly puts us (the profession) in a position to ensure that the job is going to be done properly.
Beamo
On the occasions when I was involved in SMS at that time, EH were quite opposed to it as they saw it as lying outside procedures identified in PPG16.
As it has spread into other types of development site, it has evolved into a hybrid beast - half evaluation, half excavation. In some circumstances it should be seen as a useful tool in the armoury of methodologies - eg road schemes where there has been no right of access for adequate evaluation - and still retains advantages over a watching brief in terms of final phase mitigation. However, it should not be used as an alternative to an adequate pre-determination evaluation where this is feasible and appropriate - we are still working to PPG16, whatever our individual views, and should remember the presumption of preservation in situ for remains of national significance. If evaluation is inadequate or non-existent, then going into a consented scheme with SMS as the mitigation assumes that the development will go ahead as planned regardlees of the nature and significance of the archaeological remains encountered.
SMS is also more difficlt to cost from a contractors point of view - going in with a capped sum hardly puts us (the profession) in a position to ensure that the job is going to be done properly.
Beamo