Does anyone have first hand experience of an archeaological survey

[kandgmitchell]

You really need to return to the planning condition. That is what you have to comply with - no more , no less. Our's required a written scheme of investigation to be agreed with the planning authority. The County archaeologist had commented on the planning application and raised a specific issue. We knew we were in for some level of site investigation. Ultimately it cost us £4700 odd to get a 16 page report saying nothing was found.

 

I sent a copy of the condition along with the comments made on the planning application to several firms to get a quote. Be careful though as several left the conserving, cataloguing and bringing in specialists where required to deal with finds as extras. Given that you have no idea what may be found, we settled on a fixed figure leaving all extra work at the expense of the firm we employed. Of course they won in this case as there was no extra work but talking to the guys actually on site, they reckon on a 50% hit in villages with an almost certainty in a town with any age.

 

I am afraid this is the approach now, the planners want reports for flood risk, bat and bird roosts, ecological impact, environmental investigation, highway impact, residential sound impact, overshadowing etc etc. No one in authority can make a decision these days without having their hand held by an expert funded by the poor soul trying to use their own land. Ho Hum!

[saveasteading]

1 minute ago, kandgmitchell said:

Ho Hum

Much as it can be annoying, we shouldn't expect a planner to be expert in all these things. There used to be so much difference between which planner you got  some being much too lax.

But I never hesitate to question the report and recommendation and the planner can then take a view

 

[Furnace]

I've just had 2 quotes for an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. One was £2200 +VAT + costs of accessing data (c.£160). The other was £1975 +VAT +data costs.
Both DBAs allude to "further work may be required"

 

NPPF Para 194 states (my emphasis) "Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation."
I've therefore declared that submitting my own DIY ADBA is appropriate given the site's particulars and the very limited potential for any remains to exist.

[Dave Jones]

1 hour ago, Furnace said:

I've just had 2 quotes for an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. One was £2200 +VAT + costs of accessing data (c.£160). The other was £1975 +VAT +data costs.
Both DBAs allude to "further work may be required"

 

NPPF Para 194 states (my emphasis) "Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation."
I've therefore declared that submitting my own DIY ADBA is appropriate given the site's particulars and the very limited potential for any remains to exist.

 

i like it! Let us know how you get on. Planners are all too hasty to tag on conditions that cost ££££ without the slightest thought.

[Post and beam]

1 hour ago, Furnace said:

I've therefore declared that submitting my own DIY ADBA is appropriate given the site's particulars and the very limited potential for any remains to exist.

Good luck with that!

I doubt the local heritage team will take kindly to you deciding the liklehood of finding anything of interest.  

In my case i am having to get 6% area of my plot trenched. This amounts to 3 off 2 x 10 metre trenches at 1.2 metres depth minimum.  My opinion of what is under the ground is irrelevant and worthless to the Heritage team at Hertfordshire county.

[saveasteading]

Remarkably similar quotes.

Maybe thank them and ask how many site hours and office hours they anticipate.

 

And if there  is there anything you can do for them to reduce the cost.

 

When you eventually have them on site, it is a good idea to show great interest, ask what they are looking for and shadow them all day. Ie killing off additional research.

I did that successfully....no roman road.

I explained to the guy that ironstone is natural  and it wasn't an old road.

[Furnace]

6 minutes ago, Post and beam said:

i am having to get 6% area of my plot trenched.

Urghh. Did you have an ADBA beforehand that 'recommended' field analysis?

[Furnace]

2 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Maybe thank them and ask how many site hours and office hours they anticipate.

 

A lot of copy and pasting from the various Heritage/ Historic websites.....that I've already done.

I may have to bite the bullet, but since I have a digger it would be cheap (although inconvenient) to dig a couple of trenches where the foundations are going and have them take a peek in them rather than spend £2500 on a report that may suggest digging trenches....

[Post and beam]

Not quite in that order.

County had already decided that a field survey was going to happen. The Archeologist's first step was a desktop survey as part of his WSI submission.  The county heritage team approve his scheme ( or not) and send notification to me. I then onward this to the planning officer who takes a fee. And, as of yesterday, tell me that they then have to send the scheme to the County heritage team for approval. They were uninterested when i told them it had come from them already and was approved!!!!

You cant make this Sh1t up.

Potential 8 week wait for this loop to work its way around.

[Post and beam]

6 minutes ago, Furnace said:

a couple of trenches where the foundations are going and have them take a peek

I have had to wait until planning was granted before i could make arrangements to engage an Archeologist. Otherwise i would have done this a year ago.

On the basis that until planning is granted they don't know for certain where the footprint is.

Of the 3 trenches in the plan  only one is even close to the footprint. I told you you cannot make this up.

One of them is perpendicular to the road and  on the direct line that will bring the heavy deliveries onto site. So now this will be on backfilled soft ground.

[Furnace]

I really, really feel your pain. There seems a very tenuous link between practicality and requirement, and apparent logic is often absent - and we foot the bill for costs and/or delays.

It's not clear why a DBA was required. The ones I've read focus on the potential for the site to contain viable remains and if further investigation is required. It sounds like County had already determined there must be invasive fieldwork.
Big sigh.

[saveasteading]

Tell them that their trench crosses your access and so please leave that bit undug.

 

The likelihood is that this is simply a quick trench that they will examine the sides of , looking for traces of ditches and hedges.  Not a slow thing with trowels and toothbrushes.

[Furnace]

My planning application determination date has been deferred due to the county archaeological officer requiring an ADBA prior to a determination being made - I could not have avoided this delay.
I've submitted my DIY version to the planning officer, and this has been forwarded to the county archaeological  officer for consultation. I'll report back on the outcome. It may well suggest that my submission is not 'professional', although they would need to demonstrate that it contains insufficient information to form its conclusions. I'm hoping that if they don't accept it meets the requirements, they will recommend a condition be applied to any permission rather than requiring more consultation prior to a determination.

[saveasteading]

In case it helps in any way...

I have suffered arch....etc surveys in kent i think 5 times.

In none of them was the consultant responsible for trenches.

We argued that the foundation excavation was sufficient to allow them to inspect.

This kept the cost and disruption down, and remained in our control.

The worst case was when they wanted the excavations to half depth for one  inspection, then another at full depth. In reality there was clearly nothing there so they said carry on,    but didn't reduce the fee.

 

I met them on each occasion, and they were happy to explain that they were mostly  looking for ditches, to complete a plan of ancient field boundaries.

 

On another, it was a known Roman stopover. There were bits of pot all over but they didn't want any more. Could have been serious if we had found a footing or well etc.

 

One job had no condition and they turned up on site, hoping we would let them look in the excavations. He got excited thinking he had found a roman road they knew was nearby. I explained it was a stratum of ironstone. Then they left.

 

Lastly a known brickworks,  infilled with filthy dirt. I complained that the survey was pointless because the works didn't reach the old buildings. Made it easy for them to agree by drawing cross sections.  i e give them a non awkward exit.

 

Hope that helps.

Study your site. Ask what they expect to find. Question their proposal if excessive. Stand over them.

They will be decent people, expert in what they do. But best not at your unreasonable expense. 

 

As it happens I am at a talk tonight about roman , and other, excavations. I'm wondering who is paying for the dig.

 

 

 

[Furnace]

2 hours ago, saveasteading said:

Question their proposal if excessive.

Their request is for a ADBA of the site. That's what I wrote and have sent them. Ground works will only extend to an area of about 35m² outside the barn's current footprint. If requested, I could dig a trench in that area for them to inspect. I'd hope that would cost less than the £2500 they want just for the ADBA.

[Post and beam]

Update:

Archeology conducted tuesday and wednesday this week. Nothing found all signed off. Backfilled !

Had the digger driver do the trial pits to 2 metres depth at the same time and send the soil samples from said pits  off for analysis. Fingers crossed only standard footings will be needed.

[saveasteading]

8 minutes ago, Post and beam said:

Backfilled

But you took photos first?

How would you describe the ground?

[Post and beam]

I did take some but the archaeologist took loads. He has to justify his work to the county heritage inspector who also attended site. It was him that signed it off. We only backfilled after this. Nothing was found of any interest at all.

What do you mean about the ground? i am tempted to say 'muddy'  but i guess you have specifics in mind. Happy to describe.

[Ajn]

One of our many conditions was for an archeaological survey. There had been some medieval finds within 300m of our site. We looked at vaious options but went with the county archeaological services. They also wanted a lot of photos of the building and barn we were converting. They specified the trenches they wanted and where. they modified them to only include parts we were digging. We had to provide the man and digger but he did other stuff at the same time (which they also looked at).

One of them got excited about a pit with bones at the bottom under a clay layer. The bones were chicken and they decided the pit was a tree root ball that had been removed prior to the clay being brought in for the walled garden. Cost was about £1700.

 

 

[saveasteading]

17 minutes ago, Post and beam said:

but i guess you have specifics in mind. Happy to describe.

Engineer geek enquiry.

In advance of your next stage queries.

 

Was it the same all the way, or layered?

Clay/sand/stone? Did it fall apart when deposited or stay in lumps? Did the trench sides stay upright?

 

When walked on at the bottom it seems to have turned to mud.

 

The ground report will say something like silty sandy clay with root fragments and occasional gravel.

Clay would be the most important word.

 

It's lucky you had an experienced observer prepared to say just a chicken and an old tree stump....not possible evidence of an ancient encampment.

 

[Post and beam]

I will update with the soil report when i get it.

What i can say is that there was about 300mm of very high quality topsoil (100 years of pig shit, it was a small holding and Orchard) Then below that 700mm of lighter, slightly sandy soil. At about 800mm depth was the underlying ground.

Some clay at the bottom.

Sides of the trenches stayed very square and solid, and dry.

Dry except in one of the 3 trenches which began to collect a little water as the ground sloped away to the east for this one.

[Blooda]

17 hours ago, saveasteading said:

....not possible evidence of an ancient encampment.

 

or even worse "possibly ritual" 

[saveasteading]

Sounds ideal. I was getting you to describe it while fresh in your mind. Just in case someone wants you to dig it again.

[SteamyTea]

On 09/03/2023 at 18:55, Post and beam said:

The planning dept recieved no response from Herts Archeaology after i put my application in. In my world if a department does not respond to a request for information then they have no interest and their input is struck from the requirement

In contract law, silence is not acceptance.

But as usual, never simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felthouse_v_Bindley

[kandgmitchell]

Not necessarily in the "Alice through the looking glass" world of planning. After a successful appeal against outline approval for our plot and a subsequent renewal of that approval, in the last few days of my own full application (long story) the planner raised potential contamination. When I expressed surprise (expletive deleted) that this hadn't been raised at all before; her response was that no-one had asked that department..............