The County Series mapping came up in these discussions - several people have
purchased these from Landmark Ltd and there is a known (by us and them
anyway) problem with their 'first' edition 1:10,560 mapping for Lancashire.
They also provide a product which is a GIS dataset(s) indicating all known
and potential contaminated (often industrial) sites shown on all editions
and scales of the OS mapping.
Pete Iles
Lancs SMR
-----Original Message-----
From: John Wood [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 31 October 2001 16:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Contaminated Land - Archaeological Sites
We have been in discussion with our new Contaminated Land Officer, who
contributed (substantially) towards the acquisition of all the County Series
OS mapping for the GIS - and very useful it is too!
John Wood
Inverness
-----Original Message-----
From: Hutcheson, Andy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 31 October 2001 15:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Contaminated Land - Archaeological Sites
Brian Durham (Oxford City Council) gave a paper at the recent PARIS
conference on a similar subject. He discussed specific projects in Oxford
where PARIS was overruled by statute. PPG23 is informative, the Water Act
1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are the relevant instruments.
Andy Hutcheson, Norfolk Landscape Archaeology
-----Original Message-----
From: Iles Peter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 31 October 2001 15:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Contaminated Land - Archaeological Sites
Following recent discussions with three separate local authorities it
appears that there are some 'new' contaminated land regulations either in
force or about to come into force. These regulations would appear to make a
fundamental change in the way that the problem is approached. The local
authorities are now expected to actively seek out and identify sources of
contamination and address any impacts that this might be haiving, rather
than waiting for development proposals or complaints to be received and then
checking sites.
This could potentially have a large impact on archaeological sites -
particularly historical industrial sites -which may be identified as
contaminated and 'cleaned up' without necessarily requiring planning
permission. This may result in the destruction of important sites without
record.
I understand that the regulations do make reference to Scheduled Ancient
Monuments, but only as sites that may be affected by contamination
('receptors' I think is the term) rather than as sites which may be a source
of contamination. I believe other archaeological sites are not mentioned.
The main points of my discussions have been about what digital data I have
in my SMR and what can I let them have to aid their work, with the
implication that they want a full digital SMR for incorporation into their
contaminated land GIS. With the current state of the SMR this is not really
a practical proposition but I am aware that we need some system of liaison
to deal with the inevitable conflicts of interest.
Does anyone know any more about this subject?
Peter Iles, Lancashire SMR
********************
This e-mail contains information intended for the addressee only.
It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or
professional privilege.
If you are not the addressee you are not authorised to
disseminate, distribute, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment to it
The content may be personal or contain personal opinions and
unless specifically stated or followed up in writing,
the content cannot be taken to form a contract or to be an expression
of the County Council's position.
LCC reserves the right to monitor all incoming and outgoing email
LCC has taken reasonable steps to ensure that outgoing communications do not
contain malicious software and it is your responsibility to carry out any
checks on this email before accepting the email and opening attachments.
********************
|