Brian,
I am intrigued and would be interested to see examples of your
'criteria-led' local plan policies if possible please
Could be very useful.
John Wood
----------------------------------------------------------
John Wood
Senior Archaeologist
Planning and Development Service
The Highland Council
Glenurquhart Road
Inverness IV3 5NX
Tel: 01463 702502 Fax: 01463 702298
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: <http://www.higharch.demon.co.uk>
This Email (and any attachment) is intended for the exclusive use of the
addressee(s) only. You should not disclose its contents to any other
person. If you receive this message in error, please contact the sender
and delete the message. Thank you
Opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily represent
those of my employer.
-----Original Message-----
From: DURHAM Brian [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 21 February 2002 17:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Areas of Archaeological potential (leading naturally to
local plan policies)
All - ........ and then there is the risk of overkill. In 1993 GL and I
were asked to identify additional zones of archeological significance for
Oxford. The existing Central Area was 4.7% of the Local Plan area; slewed
by a collossal chunk of historic flood plain, this easily increased this to
26.6%. It was not implemented (for some reason?), and for the past nine
years I have quoted them as `draft' zones of archaeological significance.
They have never been challenged, but I never use them in isolation. With a
new Local Plan on the way, I am having cold feet about pressing the change,
because of the risk of devaluing the remaining 73%. Anyone else have
statistics for this?
On Local Plan policies, pardon me if I haven't been paying attention, but
has anyone come up with `criteria-led' local plan archaeological policies
which reflect the spirit of Power of Place. Show you mine! - Brian
> ----------
> From: Bob Sydes[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: SMRforum is for the circulation of information and general
> discussion of is
> Sent: 20 February 2002 15:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Areas of Archaeological potential
>
> <<File: InterScan_SafeStamp.txt>>
> Dear Jennifer,
>
> This subject has exercised us all for quite a few years and has been
> discussed recently at the ALGAO Planning & Legislation Subcommittee. No
> Earth shattering conclusions I am afraid! Like yourselves I have always
> had a deep mistrust of constraint areas on maps unless, as in the case of
> surviving earthworks the full extent of a monument type is known. It can
> be awkward in a planning situation if, for instance one was to recommend
> an archaeological evaluation in a field adjacent an archaeological
> constraint area as defined in a local plan or on the SMR. We are
> increasingly however, under pressure to provide more 'user friendly'
> geographical information for our colleagues in planning or transportation
> and English Heritage have been encouraging for a number of years the use
> of constraint areas with the extensive and intensive urban surveys.
>
> I am currently engaged in developing a management framework for Bath which
> involves the use of area characterisation in narrative and geographical
> formats. The advantages of this approach, as with conservation area
> character assessments, is that a polygon boundary can be authenticated in
> whatever terms we choose - a sort of metadata statement I suppose. With
> the majority of archaeological data in SMR's this type of detailed
> approach is almost impossible given existing resources.
>
> Interestingly, Bath, with one of the largest urban conservation areas in
> the country has not one single shred of written justification for the
> boundary that I can find and as far as I am aware, it has never been
> challenged at appeal. The difference between two sectors of a Victorian
> development known as Oldfield Park within and without this boundary is
> striking. On on one side neat wooden sashes and on the other?...I leave
> that to you.
>
> My planning colleagues have access to GIS point data from the SMR but they
> would much prefer to use a constraint map. It is a dilemma.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JENNIFER Hall [ mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 20 February 2002 08:30
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Areas of Archaeological potential
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Traditionally we have steered away from constraint areas, areas of
> > archaeological sensitivity or archaeological potential as
> > entities in their
> > own right within the SMR. Advice and areas of concern have
> > been given on a
> > case by case basis and this information has not been recorded
> > except in the
> > letters/reports concerning the site.
> >
> > Are there any best practice guidelines or methodologies for
> > how such areas
> > are derived? The drawing of such boundaries always seems
> > very subjective
> > to me. How do you make those boundaries defensible in a
> > public inquiry for
> > instance? (Apart from it's there because we say so.)
> >
> > Jenny Hall
> > SMR Officer, Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Cambria Archaeology,
> > Shire Hall,
> > Carmarthen Street
> > Llandeilo
> > Carmarthenshire
> > SA19 6AF
> >
> > 01558 823131
> >
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> The views and comments expressed in this email are confidential to the
> recipients
> and should not be passed on to others without permission. This email
> message does
> not necessarily express the views of Bath & North East Somerset Council
> and should
> be considered personal unless there is a specific statement to the
> contrary.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for
> all
> known viruses by the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service.
>
> Making Bath & North East Somerset a better place to Live, Work and Visit.
> **********************************************************************
>
>
|