Archaeology & Planning
The introduction of a number of government guidance notes on archaeology and planning has resulted in most development proposals being checked by local planning authorities. A review of its impact in England suggested that in a typical county as many as 1000 applications per year required some form of archaeological intervention.
There are an estimated 600,000 archaeological sites in England alone. They constitute the most common potential constraint on any development. Large or small, urban, greenfield or brownfield, any development can come into conflict with archaeology. Housing schemes, shopping centres, quarries, roads and pipelines are just a few of the proposals that have had to contend with the presence of archaeological remains.
Archaeological intervention required by a planning authority can range from a pre-application assessment, observation and recording during construction, through various stages and scales of pre-development excavation and scientific analysis. Some local planning authorities now request archaeological surveys of standing buildings, listed or otherwise. In some instances an application might be refused because of the perceived importance of the archaeology. The implications can be expensive in both time and money.
The various policies contain two significant statements. That there should be a presumption in favour of preserving important archaeological sites in situ, and secondly, where this is not possible, a suitable mitigation scheme will normally be required.
One of the most significant changes introduced by the policies has been the need to carry out archaeological evaluations before a planning application is determined. These evaluations can range from a desktop study through to physical examination of a percentage of the site proposed for development. Refusal to provide an evaluation can result in planning permission being refused.
Where the evaluation determines that important archaeological remains exist on a site, it will normally be necessary to devise a means of protecting the archaeology to gain planning permission. This does not automatically mean large scale expensive archaeological excavation.
Early advice from a suitably experienced planning archaeologist can identify more cost effective design solutions. Sites can be preserved by their incorporation into open space, absorbed into landscaping or even buried beneath a sealing layer. Use of appropriate foundations can minimise the amount of ground disturbance and thereby minimise the need for archaeological recording. These are all decisons that need to be made early in the design stage.
Archaeological excavation should be seen as a last resort when other options have been explored and proved impracticable or uneconomic. With archaeological investigation and scientific analysis of complex sites costing several hundred pounds per cubic metre, there are strong commercial reasons for seeking more cost effective alternatives.
The cost of any form of archaeological investigation falls automatically on the developer. It is advisable to seek competitive tenders from archaeological contractors and maintain proper cost supervision and quality control during the works. A failure to meet the requirements laid down in an approved scheme of archaeological recording could represent a breach of a planning condition.
With proper supervision and control, the cost of necessary archaeological works can be minimised. To prevent archaeology developing into a potential albatross it is advisable to engage specialist advice at the earliest stage. Prevention is often cheaper than the cure.
Typical Requirements
A Desk Top Study involves the examination and evaluation of local, regional or national archaeological records. It may include aerial photographs, old maps and published records and a rapid surface inspection of the site. It should produce a written report and recommendations for the local planning authority (see Nosterfield Desk Top Study).
A Field Evaluation may be requested prior to determination of a planning application. This may include a Geophysical Survey, a technique that can detect buried features without disturbing the ground and Sampling Excavation, usually a series of small-scale trenches or test pits being dug by an archaeological contractor. It should be integrated with other geotechnical work (see Nosterfield News, fieldwalking).
A Grampian Condition is used to impose a scheme of archaeological recording on a development. It requires the scheme to be submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority, and the recording to be implemented BEFORE development can commence. Section 106 Agreements are used less frequently to achieve similar objectives.
A Watching Brief requires the presence on site of a trained archaeologist to record features as they are revealed during construction. It should be organised in a way that minimises delays to other site works (see 1995 Nosterfield Watching Brief report).
An Excavation may range from the detailed examination and recording of a part of a site through to its total excavation. It is the most costly element of any archaeological intervention (see Nosterfield web site).
The Post Excavation Analysis involves the detailed scientific analysis of the results of an excavation. Where rich deposits are identified, particularly waterlogged remains, it can cost as much again as the excavation (see Nosterfield specialist reports).
The Publication of important findings may require both scientific and general works to be commissioned and care and long term curation of the Archive will be required.