Archaeology in the planning process Steve Baker

1. Archaeology in the planning process Steve Baker Development Control Archaeologist, Derbyshire County Council Minster Lovell Hall, Oxon

2. What is archaeology? “The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence” (Free Online Dictionary) • Below-ground remains • Earthworks • Built heritage • Material culture • Palaeo-environment • Known and unknown

3. Legislation and planning policy Scheduled Monuments (Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979); 4% of Derbyshire assets are scheduled PPG16 (1990) “Polluter pays” principle: archaeology as a finite non-renewable resource Use of planning conditions/Section 106 agreements: developer funding Preservation in situ or preservation by record PPS5 (2010) “Heritage value” approach – understanding significance Increased focus on plan-making and pre-application All “heritage assets” are a material consideration Principle of proportionality Weighing loss of significance against public benefit NPPF (2012?)

4. What does archaeology look like in the planning process? • Staged approach – proportionality • Identifying potential – do we need to do anything at all? • Desk-based assessment Buildings appraisal • Evaluation – non-intrusive Geophysics Fieldwalking LiDAR Earthwork survey • Evaluation – trial trenching • What next? Preservation in situ Excavation Controlled strip or watching brief Nothing! Image courtesy of ArcHeritage

5. Key considerations • Local planning authorities need specialist advice and HER • Identifying archaeological potential – known and unknown Historic Environment Record Historic maps, geology, landforms, past settlement patterns, field patterns, Regional Research Agenda, Historic Landscape Character • How much is required pre-application? Need to understand significance and impact; Presumption that hitherto unknown archaeology is identified pre-app Need for proportionality Question of balance – smart evaluation • Appropriate recording methodologies Using information from desk-based studies and evaluation to recommend the most appropriate and proportionate scheme

6. Case study 1: Foston, South Derbyshire • Major 21ha pig farm and biogas application (not yet determined) • Ploughed site in Trent Valley – sands and gravels • Archaeological interest – HER site for cropmarks; likely prehistoric date • Desk-based assessment – refined cropmark plots and discounted others • Pre-app evaluation necessary to characterise archaeology – phased process • Geophysics • Limited trial trenching to validate Anne Bronte’s grave, Scarborough Images courtesy of University of Leicester Archaeological Services

7. Case study 1: Foston, South Derbyshire Results of DBA and evaluation process: Middle Bronze Age and probable Romano-British landscape Funerary monuments with cremations Field system Monuments focused on low ridge Some cropmarks not archaeological Archaeological features truncated by ploughing Recommendation for conditioned approach to remainder of archaeology Open area excavation over ring ditches Strip-and-record during groundworks Lydiard Church, Swindon ‘Smart’ phased DBA and evaluation work reduced pre-app burden for applicant – early engagement critical

8. Case study 2: Waterswallows, Buxton • 21ha application for new bottling plant • ‘Improved’ limestone moorland • No HER records – archaeological potential identified through consultation on planning application • Proximity of ‘Bullring’ henge • Proximity of Roman roads • Topography/geological position • Desk-based assessment highlighted likely impact of recent quarrying • Recommendation to defer further archaeological response as conditioned scheme Scarborough

9. Case study 2: Waterswallows, Buxton Trial trenching evaluation (28 trenches) Large numbers of archaeological features and finds – high significance Archaeology caused disruption to site programme Combination of preservation in situ and area excavation Late Mesolithic-early Neolithic activity (c5500-3000BC). Rare structural evidence – early Neolithic longhouse Earlier engagement would have enabled better planning of archaeological programme Images courtesy of ArcHeritage

10. Case study 3 – ‘The Old Barn’, Dronfield Application to convert Grade II* building for community use 18th century stone barn with timber frame dating around 1450 – possibly site of medieval manor house Proposals include sub-floor excavations for underfloor heating Small-scale pre-app evaluation – test pits Evidence for post-medieval floors and wall footings Original medieval beaten-earth floor? Images courtesy of Archaeological Research Services Ltd Monkwearmouth Church

11. Case study 3 – ‘The Old Barn’, Dronfield Conditioned archaeological work: Full building survey Archaeological work in area of medieval remains Opportunities for community involvement Dale St, Liverpool

12. Conclusions • Phased process – identification, evaluation, recording/preservation • Identification of potential sites draws on a wealth of background evidence • Massive range of potential tools and techniques available • Essential that LPAs have expert advice and access to HER • Ideally the identification and evaluation stages should happen pre-application • Early engagement is crucial