3.0 Guidance, Part B:  Development Control – Methodologies and Procedures

3.1    This section of the SPG details the standard methodologies and procedures used by B&NES as part of the development control process in assessing development proposals which might affect an archaeological site and assist in the implementation of Development Plan policies on archaeology. These methodologies reflect best practice as detailed in numerous publications, particularly those by the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers and the Institute of Field Archaeologists and are consistent with advice in Planning Policy Guidance.  There are three basic elements or stages in development control archaeology, Appraisal, Assessment and Mitigation.

3.2    Appraisal

3.2.1  There are a number of mechanisms whereby a development proposal will come to the attention of the Archaeological Officer for appraisal.  In a growing number of cases developers and their agents will request a screening opinion at a very early stage in the development process, sometimes prior to the working up of draft development details.  More commonly registered planning applications are forwarded by the planning or listed building case officer for comment.  Another increasingly common approach, particularly with the larger and potentially more controversial developments is through the Planning Services Development Team.

3.2.2  An appraisal is an initial consideration by the Council’s Archaeological Officer of the archaeological potential of a proposed development site.  An appraisal involves consultation of the Bath and North East Somerset Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) and any associated published or unpublished archaeological information held as part of the SMR.  A site visit may also be carried out in some instances.  The appraisal considers both the presence of known archaeological sites directly and indirectly affected by the proposed development, and the potential of an area to contain archaeology.

3.2.3 Areas which retain a very high potential for the survival of significant archaeological remains include early village centres, the alluvial flood plains of the Rivers Avon and Chew, and the Cam and Wellow Brooks. As well as the areas covered by the Extensive Urban Surveys.

3.2.4  Obviously not every development will trigger an appraisal and dormer windows additions, the majority of porch or small extensions in non-sensitive areas are all kinds of development that will not generally have an effect on archaeology.  Development types which have potentially the most damaging impact on archaeology and the historic environment and will trigger an appraisal  include the following:

• Farm and barn conversions, usually those that date to the 19th century and earlier and that retain many original fixtures and features
• New Industrial, commercial or housing on green field sites
• New Industrial, commercial or housing on brown field sites
• Conversions and alterations to listed buildings
• Conversions and alterations to non-listed but important historic buildings
• Recreational development, including sports fields and cycle ways
• Landscaping, particularly large scale and associated with historic landscapes, parks and gardens
• Tree planting, such as afforestation proposals and large scale planting for developments
• Creation of new access to properties or land, particularly in historic areas
• New roads and road maintenance, such as the creation of new entrance splays
• Public Utilities operations such as pipe and cable laying
• Mineral extraction
• Flood compensation works.
• Flood defence works.

3.2.5  In cases where the appraisal has identified the physical presence of archaeological remains or has identified the potential for archaeological remains to exist, a number of options are pursued.  These are:

Archaeological Assessment.  A request for further information from the applicant or consultant.

Recommendation for refusal on archaeological grounds to the Planning Case Officer.

Mitigation required.

An appraisal can be seen as an initial scoping opinion regarding any possible historic environment constraints and developers or landowners are encouraged to consult the District Archaeological Officer at the earliest opportunity,  An early opinion can save time and money later on.

3.3    Assessment

3.3.1  An archaeological assessment is generally required in cases where the initial appraisal has highlighted the presence of archaeological sites or the high archaeological potential of a site. The results of an archaeological assessment willI enable an informed planning decision to be reached, and the development of a suitable mitigation strategy (see 3.4.28 for information on funding).

3.3.2  This archaeological assessment is commissioned by the developer or consultant and at their expense.  Professional archaeological organisations are used to implement the assessment.  There are a variety of different techniques available to assist in an archaeological assessment as listed below.

The results of an archaeological assessment may be requested by the Local Planning Authority  prior to registering a planning application or prior to a determination of a registered application

3.3.3  Desktop assessment

This process takes the initial site appraisal one stage further and involves a detailed analysis of all available information on a site and its immediate locale.  The purpose of this research is to gain the maximum amount of information at an early stage in the consultation process.  This form of assessment  is particularly recommended for large and/or complex development proposals. It can also form part of an Environmental Impact Assessment.   In the words of PPG16,  “…consultations will help to provide prospective developers with advance warning of the archaeological sensitivity of a site.  As a result they may wish to commission their own archaeological assessment by a professionally qualified archaeological organisation or consultant.  This need not involve fieldwork.  Assessment normally involves desk-based evaluation of existing information: it can make effective use of records of previous discoveries,  including any historic maps held by the County archive and local museums and record offices, or of geophysical survey techniques.” (Para 20)

3.3.4  A desktop study normally involves the following:

• Site visit
• Detailed critical analysis of the SMR and other heritage databases
• Search of other sources (published and unpublished material)
• Past and present land use
• Detailed analysis of aerial photographs
• Topographical analysis
• Geological analysis
• Analysis of old maps
• Summary of historical sources

The desktop assessment can also be supplemented by the results of geophysical survey and geotechnical investigations.

3.3.5  In some cases the desktop study may be all that is required in order for a mitigation strategy to be agreed on.  However, in many situations this will highlight the need for further assessment work in the form of a site evaluation.  In these instances, the desktop study will enable a more effective use of this technique and guide the selective sampling of the archaeology.

3.3.6  Site Evaluation

If a proposed development site is considered to have a high potential for containing significant archaeological remains, either as a result of the initial appraisal or a subsequent desktop study,  then an applicant may be required to provide the results of an archaeological field evaluation prior to a determination. 

PPG16 states:

“…it is reasonable for the planning authority to request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken… Evaluations of this kind help to define the character and extent of the archaeological remains that exist in the area of a proposed development, and thus indicate the weight which ought to be attached to their preservation.  They also provide information useful for identifying potential options for minimising or avoiding damage.  On this basis, an informed and reasonable planning decision can be taken.” (Par. 21).

3.3.7  The primary aim of an evaluation is therefore to establish whether the application site contains archaeological remains worthy of preservation in situ.  The cost of a site evaluation should not be excessive but will correspond to the size of the proposed development and the complexity of archaeological deposits.  PPG16 considers it to be, “…a rapid and inexpensive operation, involving ground survey and small-scale trial trenching, (and) should be carried out by a professionally qualified archaeological organisation or archaeologist.” (Para.21).