I usually ask for 4-5%, and these days use Hay and Lacey as a back up for
that. However, if there are suggestions that we as archaeologists are
plucking enhanced sample sizes from the ether, then we must counter by
asking what is the CBI's recommended 2% based on? Is there any statistical
substance to this sample size? I know 2% has been around a long time, but
where did it originate from?
I take the view that a reasonable sample size allows all parties to be made
aware of the potential archaeological concerns on what are usually large
sites, as soon as practicable. This applies to large-scale construction
sites also. Surely this is to the benefit of all concerned? Whilst it's
hardly scientific, I could also fairly confidently say that I've not had a
4-5% evaluation strategy misfire by not at least indicating important or
significant archaeology on a site. However, this has happened with a 2%
strategy - on more than one occasion...
Tony
Smith Ken
<ken.smith@PEAKDISTR To: [log in to unmask]
ICT.GOV.UK> cc:
Sent by: Issues Subject: Re: CBIs Archaeological Code of Practice for Minerals Operators
related to Historic
Environment Records
<[log in to unmask]
c.uk>
16/06/06 11:35
Please respond to
Issues related to
Historic Environment
Records
Chums
I am currently involved, on behalf of ALGAO, in a series of meetings,
partnered by EH, SCAUM, POS and IFA, with CBI, QPA and BAA. It is rather
grandly called the Minerals Evaluation Group. It has been convened in the
face of increasing complaints from the industry about unreasonable requests
from our sector for increasingly expensive and often unproductive field
evaluation ahead of determination of mineral development applications. One
meeting has taken place so far, another takes place on Monday week. It is
hoped to progress to a national seminar to air both issues and potential
solutions but that depends on being able to agree on what both might be.
Needless to say, the CBI Code and its contention that evaluation should
rarely exceed 2% is being touted by the industry as the gospel, while we
are countering with the Hey and Lacey analyses for PLANARCH and the French
requirement for 10%, as an example of what happens elsewhere. As you can
imagine, it makes for an interesting meeting. I think that the sector,
busy though we all are, is going to have to give more thought to justifying
why it requires a sample of X% in future, rather than reaching for a
convenient 5% or whatever because of what H & L have said -- and remember,
they don't recommend 5%, and are quite reasonably saying that there is no
'one size fits all' solution - it has to be based on analysis of the
particular local circumstances, knowledge, understanding etc.
One of the things that the industry is reluctant to provide evidence for,
is the data to back up their contention that costs are increasing and what
proportion those are of the overall development costs. If any of you have
any thoughts/comments/knowledge of the costs of evaluation against area of
development, over time etc. I would welcome the data to be able to take to
these meetings. I am aware that curators often aren't privy to such
figures as these are often deemed to be commercially sensitive, but just in
case....
Regards
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Sam Mellonie
Sent: 16 June 2006 11:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CBIs Archaeological Code of Practice for Minerals
Operators
It was revised in 1991, but that was all the info I could find on the
Internet.
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of LEE, Edmund
Sent: 16 June 2006 11:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CBIs Archaeological Code of Practice for Minerals
Operators
Hello all,
I believe this was published in 1982. If folk believe it is
still relevant and current, I would be happy to pursue creation
of a digital copy for inclusion in the HELM web-site. Let me
know.
Best wishes
Edmund Lee
Standards and Guidelines Manager
English Heritage
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lee White
Sent: 16 June 2006 09:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CBIs Archaeological Code of Practice for
Minerals Operators
Dear All,
I'm trying to track a copy of the above down and can't
find it on the web on either the CBI's website or
Helm/Heirpot/BAJR/IFA etc. Can anyone direct me to where
I can get a copy - or alternatively may I have a
photocopy from someone?
cheers
Lee
_____________________________________________
Assistant Archaeology Officer
Culture & Leisure
Durham County Council
Durham DH1 5TY
0191-383-4212 (T) 0191-384-1336 (F)
[log in to unmask]
On-line SMR: www.keystothepast.info
1st edition of annual magazine "Archaeology in County
Durham" now available to purchase via:
www.durham.gov.uk/onlineshop
*******************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed.
If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender
immediately by using the reply facility in your email software.
Please also destroy and delete the message from your computer.
Any modification of the contents of this email is strictly prohibited
unless expressly authorised by the sender.
*******************************************
Save energy, money and the environment - is it necessary to print
this message?
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
Working together for the Peak District National Park
· a special environment
· a welcoming place at the heart of the nation
· vibrant communities and a thriving economy
Please Note:
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Unauthorised access to
this email by anyone else is prohibited. If you have received this email in
error or are reading it without authorisation, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
is prohibited by the Peak District National Park Authority and may be
unlawful.
Senders and recipients of email should be aware that under the Data
Protection Act 1998 [and the Freedom of Information Act 2000], the contents
may have to be disclosed to a request.
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This email and any attachments with it are intended for the addressee only.
It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or professional privilege.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender or [log in to unmask]
The content may be personal or contain personal opinions and cannot be taken as an expression of the County Council's position.
Surrey County Council reserves the right to monitor all incoming and outgoing mail.
Whilst every care has been taken to check this outgoing e-mail for viruses, it is your responsibility to carry out any checks upon receipt.
Visit the Surrey County Council website - http://www.surreycc.gov.uk
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|