This looks like a good system but I have a couple of observations. How do you intend to deal with brownfield areas, open space within urban areas & urban areas in general? I know that this is not exactly an easy issue but surely constraint areas should be defined for both rural & built up areas?
I think the attempt to rank the constraint areas is laudable but surely if one is scoring such sites, the scoring process would need to be reviewed regularly in order to keep up with new discoveries, research, etc. This may prove onerous in the long term but that is not necessarily a bad idea though as it would force one to implement a regular review programme. District Councils would therefore know that your advice is based on up-to-date information & research.
However, it is possible that such a system could become hostage to fortune as is would seriuosly devalue 'white areas' and may make requesting evaluations etc in areas outside those mapped as constraints very hard & open to challenge. Might it be just as effective to simply map those areas that have known archaeological potential and are likely to require evaluation etc. unless there are specific reasons not to, regardless of importance, and then to indicate that those areas not included in a constraint area may also have archaeological potential & therefore may require evaluation etc.? It's just a thought.
Rob Bourn
>>> Duncan Coe <[log in to unmask]> 05/05/00 09:30am >>>
Dear Colleague,
As part of a partnership with our District Councils we have agreed to
draw up archaeological constraint maps for each of the District areas.
We have began the process by drawing up a methodology. We initially
tried a complex system, but now have come up with something which we
hope is relatively simple and effective. The details are explained
below.
WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS WHETHER ANYONE IS USING A SYSTEM LIKE THIS
AND IF SO THEIR TRACK EXPERIENCE OF HOW IT IS WORKING?
The methodology is as follows:
1) We have started from the basis that the constraint areas will based
on land use; therefore downland/original pasture and land in arable
cultivation.
2) We divided all our site-types into two categories (A and B), which is
a subjective division based essentially on their importance in the
County. For example long barrows, henge monuments, palaces and
settlements fall within category A, while field systems, ditches and
ring ditches fall within category B.
3) Each site is then examined from the SMR record and assigned a score.
Sites in category A are given a score of 2, in category B a score of 1.
If the site is disturbed or destroyed it will not receive any additional
scores. If the site is ploughed it will receive another 2 points, if it
is extant it will receive an additional 4 points. For example a henge
monument in category A will receive 2 points if destroyed, 4 points if
ploughed, but 6 points for being extant. A field system in category B
will receive 1 point for under a motorway, 3 points for being ploughed,
but 5 points for being extant.
4) For all sites with a score of 2 or 3 we are suggesting to the
District Councils they consult us on all applications. For sites with a
score of 4, 5 or 6 that they are preserved in situ; in this way the
District Councils will have an initial idea on our response to a
planning application any particular area.
We have excluded all Scheduled Monuments from the process as these are
already graded as such, but will include them on our maps. We are also
excluding the towns until the results of our extensive urban survey have
been completed, when the information can be transferred direct.
We will be plotting the constraint areas in AutoCAD as polygons and
hopefully transferring this information as digital data to the District
Councils.
I would be most grateful for any comments you have to hcp@wiltsarchaeolo
gy.demon.co.uk.
Yours faithfully,
--
--
Helena Cave-Penney
Wiltshire Archaeology Service
Phone: 01225 713734
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
