Print

Print


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.
> **********************************************************************
>
>