Hi all
I've contributed on this topic several times over past few years so will summarize, but at West of Scotland Archaeology Service we prepared digital "ACT" ("Archaeological Consultation Trigger") maps for the 11 local authorities we advised, for incorporation into their GIS development control systems.
I am a firm believer that there should be a country-wide (ALGAO?) specification of a product like this, with all SMR/HERs contributing to create a national dataset that could be used for development control and strategic forward planning. How it was generated by each record could be different, although this could easily be automated for HBSMR users if required. 
At WoSAS we had a standard methodology and prepared/updated the ACT maps using an automated process. There was a lot of data prep - it took perhaps 1.5 years work to get to the first acceptable product, and as in N Yorks we still checked weekly lists as backup.
Basic steps:
- flag every record to filter out irrelevant stuff.
- ensure meaningful areas can be generated (either by digitizing them, or much quicker to use a buffer distances).
- digitize all significant area/linear features (inc SMs).
- use an automated process to crunch layers and grind and spit out ACT maps, as often as you need.
- educate end users re how data should be used and configured within an automated DC constraint checking process.

A dataset like this is a derivative of the core SMR/HER data, itself inappropriate for these purposes unless interpreted by a specialist. If there can be agreement on the nature of the product, then its production can easily be automated, and the data preparation requirements identified and quantified.
cheers
Crispin

-----Original Message-----
From: Gail Falkingham [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 January 2005 13:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Consultation trigger data for planning autoreferral systems


Hi Clare, Tony et al,

Here in North Yorkshire we are beginning to approach our District Councils on exactly this issue, and have recently agreed a consultation trigger procedure with Selby DC based upon us supplying them with digital polygons for inclusion in their GIS/planning database. 

We have initially concentrated on five key areas, four of which are urban, where we know, based on past experience, that a large number of planning applications are likely to be submitted that we would wish to be consulted upon. We have provided guidance as to the kind of planning applications that we would not need to comment upon, such as satellite dishes etc! So far, the system seems to be working well, and we have not been inundated with thousands of applications that we would not ordinarily wish to see. We are, however, monitoring this. This is not a substitute for our checking of the weekly planning lists, and we would still request consultations outside these areas if we felt there was a need to comment. We also reserve the right to amend these areas in future.

We are finding ourselves under ever-increasing pressure to respond quickly to ever-increasing numbers of consultations to meet the 8 week LPA deadlines * I think some planning officers would like us to be telepathic and respond even before applications are submitted!! By being consulted automatically, we can cut out the time it takes to check the weekly lists, email in our request, and have an application posted out to us * often saving up to 2 or 3 weeks of time. The staff at Selby have said that it also saves them time by dealing with the consultations and copying of plans as soon as an application comes in, before the files are passed to the case officer. Clearly, once eGovt is fully implemented in N Yorks, the trigger areas can be used to facilitate a digital approach to this consultation.

We still have a long way to go to roll out a similar approach amongst our other 6 districts, but we hope to develop this incrementally. The time it takes us to produce these trigger areas will hopefully be recouped in the longer term and will help to improve our performance.

I like Tony's idea of the larger development areas having their own policy. I also feel that planning-related issues are valid HERFORUM discussion matters and would be interested to see how others are approaching these issues!

All the best,

Gail


________________________________
Gail Falkingham, Senior Archaeologist
Heritage Section
Countryside Service
Planning & Countryside Unit
Environmental Services Directorate
North Yorkshire County Council
County Hall
Northallerton  DL7 8AH

Direct Dial:  01609 532839
Office Fax: 01609 532558
[log in to unmask]


>>> [log in to unmask] 26/01/2005 12:51:19 >>>
Hi Clare,

Surrey has a County-wide series of designated areas of three classes,
denoting archaeological potential, known archaeological sites, and
Scheduled Monuments. These areas are supplied to the district and borough
councils in full, and used by them as a trigger for planning consultations.
These designations also appear in the Local Plans and are backed up by
policy. As far as I know, the areas were originally hand-drawn onto maps
(in the dark days before GIS) , and then later created as a GIS layer for
our use - I'm not sure how the districts manage the information digitally,
but I assume that most of them have done something similar to enable
accurate consultations. If we need to update an area or create a new one,
we write to the head of development control at the district council, with
an annotated paper map attached to the letter.

In tandem with this, we also run a system of requiring archaeological
investigation on sites over a certain size if you're worried about losing
the potential ability to investigate interesting or noteworthy sites
outside such designated areas. This also appears as a policy in the County
Structure Plan Local Plans, and generally means that archaeology doesn't
get overlooked or under-resourced on large scale development projects. It
is also pretty successful at identifying hitherto unknown sites. Let me
know if you want more info on how this all works - probably better off list
so as not to bore everyone else with planning talk.

Cheers,

Tony

         
  <[log in to unmask]>                      
   Subject:  Consultation trigger data for planning autoreferral systems
                  
  Hello everyone,

We are coming under pressure from some of our Districts to provide them
with archaeological consultation trigger data, in the form of a GIS layer
which can be used in a planning autoreferral system. In recent years we
have not provided trigger maps to the Districts at all, so are more or less
starting from scratch at this point. Does anyone have any experience of
generating GIS trigger data from SMR layers, either generally or,
especially, in relation to autoreferral systems? We would be very grateful
for any advice on sustainable methodologies and possible pitfalls.

Regards
Clare


WARNING

This E-mail and any attachments may contain information that is confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the view of the Council.

North Yorkshire County Council.