5 of 6
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Val Turner
Sent: 16 June 2006 16:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CBIs Archaeological Code of Practice for Minerals Operators
We've been asking for 20% as standard
Val
Val Turner
Regional Archaeologist, Shetland
Shetland Amenity Trust
Garthspool
Lerwick
Shetland ZE1 ONY
01595 694688
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 16 June 2006 16:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CBIs Archaeological Code of Practice for Minerals Operators
For information, the 2% sample originated on the Thames Gravels In
Oxfordshire (I think with George Lambrick) as giving something like a 95%
certainty of finding ring-ditches of a certain diameter. It has then become,
perhaps by inertia, an industry standard. Our experience was that it was
flawed in terms of a Kent context and that led to the H&L Planarch study.
Ken Smith is right in emphasising that H&L does not argue for a standard
sample but that curators have to use their experience and knowledge of the
site in question (and brain) in arriving at an appropriate sample size. It
is worth reading the H&L conclusions more than once. There are some obious
things such as that it is easier to detect feature-rich (especially when
they are linears) and artefact-rich sites (eg late Iron Age and Roman)
rather than feature-poor and artefact-poor sites (eg Bronze Age and
Anglo-Saxon). Thus any sampling strategy needs to be clear interms of what
"risk assessment" is being undertaken. If you are looking purely for Roman
sites in an area where they might be present then a low % would be
appropriate (but how often is that the case?) but if the strategy is to
undertand more vestigial remains then higher %s are required.
A key finding of H&L concerned the relationship between the % of archaeology
as surface area in evaluation trenches in relation to the site as a whole
(see para 4.3.1). If archaeological features covered say 5% of a site could
one expect to find 5% of the surface area of trial trenches covered by
archaeological features? In practice the variation was normally +/- 1% and
virtually always within +/- 1.5%. Translating that into the field with 5%
trial trenching one might expect to find archaeology covering between 3.5%
and 6.5% of the surface area of the trial trenches. If the area of trial
trenching was reduced to 2% then one might expect to find between 0.5% and
3.5% of the area of the trial trenches covered by archaeology. And then the
question is whether, bearing in mind 2% is a low percentage in the first
place and also the possible variation noted - is 2% sufficient for informed
decision making?
If anyone is not aware, H&L is available in PDF form on the Planarch web
site (www.planarch.org). There is also some useful material there on
developing better practice in relation to cultural heritage within EIA.
John Williams
Head of Heritage Conservation
Environment and Economy
Kent County Council
Invicta House, County Hall
Maidstone
Kent ME14 1XX
Tel: 01622 221534
Fax: 01622 221636
www.kent.gov.uk/environment
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 16 June 2006 14:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CBIs Archaeological Code of Practice for Minerals Operators
The 2% sample , as far as can be ascertained, has no statistical basis
whatsoever. It is a figure plucked from the air as 'seeming right' at the
time. The H&L data is soundly based and I would expect people to be able to
defend their decision, based not only on empirical data such as H&L but on
their knowledge of what a development site is known to contain, what its
potential might be, what might be gained from non-intrusive investigation,
how reliable that information might be taking into account the underlying
geology etc., etc., and therefore arrive at a sample size that is defendable
no matter what might be thrown at it. In a Public Inquiry we might be asked
to defend what we consider 'reasonable' - not lest because others might not
consider it so to be - and if we can't defend it robustly and successfully
it's another loss that chips away at our overall credibility.
I am not suggesting that anything other than correct assessment and informed
decision-making happens as a matter of course. The industry suggest that it
is not always so - I have been regaled with tales of 100% pre-determination
sample requirements! I have asked for information to back up these claims
so that I can at least make enquiries but of course there has been nothing
forthcoming. Nevertheless, there may well be those for whom such tales
confirm what could be already prejudiced or predisposed views. No-one needs
me to tell them that we need constantly to be on our mettle, not least
because of the lobbying power of the industry's representative bodies within
the Westminster corridors of power.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Tony Howe
Sent: 16 June 2006 12:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CBIs Archaeological Code of Practice for Minerals Operators
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
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
______________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________
The information in this e-mail, together with any attachments, is confidential. If you have received this message in error you must not print off, copy, use or disclose the contents. The information may be covered by legal and/or professional privilege. Please delete from your system and inform the sender of the error. As an e-mail can be an informal method of communication, the views expressed may be personal to the sender and should not be taken as necessarily representing the views of the Oxfordshire County Council. As e-mails are transmitted over a public network the Oxfordshire County Council cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message. It is your responsibility to carry out all necessary virus checks. You should be aware that all emails received and sent by this Council are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore may be disclosed to other parties under that Act. www.oxfordshire.gov.uk
|
