Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
PPS5 confusion!!!
Ive been reading the new pps 5 policy and guidance and im a touch confused with a few aspects!! This may be because i hadnt read ppg16 for a very long time so dont remember the details so apologies if this is a stupid question! Smile

the requirements to produce written statement of potential for achaeology PRIOR to planning conditions being imposed... is that effectively a desk-based assessment? or have i confused that in my head!

If it is then how does that reflect on ''rapid dba's'' submitted with eval / watching brief reports? surely any dba must be written and submitted before any further works are undertaken?

Again apologies if this is a really stupid question but im trying to teach myself the ins and outs of the new statement and i suspect ive fried my brain this evening! Rolleyes
As far as I'm concerned, a DBA of some kind should be the first stop in every case. How else are you supposed to make an informed decision on what the best course of action should be. Policy HE6 implies that this should be done before submission (to accompany it), and also that Curators can ask for pre determination evaluation where they think there is insufficient information to make a decision.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
in a nutshell consult the curators as early as possible. By rapid DBA you presumably just mean the background bit in some reports, that's not a 'proper' DBA. As for a DBA in 'every case', not necessary, the purpose of PPS5 is not to create jobs for consultants. Pre-application consultation with the relevant curator can establish what is relevant. Sounds like Sith is trying to drum up trade! Big Grin
Normally I go with early consultation followed by (if required) a 'Heritage Statement' which can be anything from a letter to the client setting out the broad potential (or otherwise) of the site, to a full-on DBA. Depends on what the county wants. Prices scaled accordingly, of course...
I know for a fact that Wessex are busier than they've been in years - for now at least the 'downturn' is in full reversal, at least on the construction front. The 'Heritage Statement' and DBA are becoming more sought after in advance of planning since the introduction of PPS5.

northerner- there is big confusion in the curators minds as to what going on. HE6 says submit with every application. The curators are still carrying on as they always have. pps5 does not seem to have changed anything for them. ALL the curators are trying to hang on to pre-application discussion. This is done through case officers. There is a charge for this advice so in effect it has become a formal procedure. As far as I am concerned the ?lets have a discussion at the earliest opportunity because it says it in ppg and pps5 is a load of rubbish particularly as for the curator to give it some consideration they must then research the site. What you really are having is the first discussion about whats required-HE6 now tells us.
Currently the curators have a great get out which is if they dont ask for anything nobody will ever know if there was anything there. The curators leave no ifa type record of the basis of their assessment. There is absolutely no comeback on them. Most planning applications are a lottery. The thing is that HE6 needs to be set up particularly if we start losing curators due to cuts. What it needs is for consideration of archaeology to be put in the planning application packs, on the forms. We can then start talking about what is a dba. Most that the curators see are for big schemes. What we need is to design them for the smallest up and the words inexpensive have to be applied. Its the demands of the curators which makes them expensive?they seem to be able to go through 100s of applications and find that nothing is required. This must have a cost per application and set the standard.
thanks everyone! so basically there is still so much confusion over the new guidelines that things havent really changed in that respect?

I have to say though that the inclusion of requirements to present archaeology to the public seems like a great idea to me, as long as its put through in such a way that the clients have little or no choice in the matter. I know that clients will aften accept the lowest tender as they feel no real need for archaeological works to be undertaken, however i worked for a very large construction company on a road scheme as public liaison for them and i was told by all the qs's that realistically they would accpet higher archaeological costs if all prices rose. Particularly as they often see even large archaeological projects as costing 'a drop in the ocean' compared to everything else. so perhaps it will be easier than we all think to encourage more public outreach as long as it is a condition of the planning consent or if everyone agrees to tender it in?
out reach why dont you leave that to the museums, thats what they are for and they need all the help they can get at the moment.
Unitof1 Wrote:out reach why dont you leave that to the museums, thats what they are for and they need all the help they can get at the moment.

I personally feel that outreach regarding current and recent archaeological projects is best handled by those undertaking the work. Museums are limited as to what they can present to the public and i dont think that relying on museums entirely to present new and interesting things is always the best course of action. Yes i agree they need all the help they can get, several friends are facing redunancy due to funding cuts etc however while museums can provide an overview of the archaeology and history of an area, specific projects should be presented by the local units. Also if museums need all the help they can get why present them with a further financial burden when the cost can be passed back on to the clients? after all these are the people with 175 million pound budgets? surely they could squeeze a little bit more out for this? and as i stated earlier they see archaeology as a drop in the ocean when it comes to costings!
Seem to be having a minor attack of deja vu here, the above posts all seem to be talking about DBAs before planning and forcing developers to pay for 'outreach'...errm, so why have I been attacked by just about everyone on other threads for the last week for raising these issues??......:face-crying:
i maybe should have read some other threads first before starting this topic! and having started it maybe shouldnt have devaited from my questions! Im just trying to prep for an interview and get explanations as my project management team dont have time!

why were you attacked for raising the issues dinosaur? seems like pretty important things to understand!

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article on PPS5 BAJR 9 4,678 31st January 2012, 07:22 PM
Last Post: Wax
  IfA statement on PPS5 Planning BAJR 20 9,737 16th September 2011, 12:59 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  Whats Good about PPS5 drpeterwardle 49 22,749 15th December 2010, 01:51 PM
Last Post: Jack
  Mike Heyworth Responds PLUS Southport Group and PPS5 BAJR 3 2,668 8th December 2010, 09:32 AM
Last Post: BAJR
  Museums: Bridging the gap in PPS5? - Contract and Academic Archaeology gwyl 10 5,505 3rd December 2010, 07:26 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  CBA - Making Archaeology Matter and PPS5 BAJR 1 1,744 15th November 2010, 04:57 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  PPS5 PARIs Steven 36 13,039 2nd June 2010, 01:42 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  PPS5 - Maintaining HERs BAJR 31 10,517 9th May 2010, 04:49 PM
Last Post: monty
  PPS5 - Rescue Response knapofhowar 1 1,372 29th March 2010, 07:20 PM
Last Post: knapofhowar
  PPS5 - Information REquirements for Applications BAJR 11 5,436 27th March 2010, 12:26 AM
Last Post: desk monkey

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)