Period Archeology

[Flyfisher]

Be careful what you dig up on your own land or you could be in for a very large bill. :shock:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39106514

 

[Abi Cott]

He did have the option of not digging his pond. He could have paid for an exploratory excavation, and then when they came across the graves he could have just knocked the project on the head. You're only required to pay for a rescue dig if you're planning on destroying the site by developing it.

Digging a few test pits costs a few thousand usually, which would have been a bit of a waste, but finding the graves does not oblige you to have them fully excavated if you are willing to just cover them back up again and mark the site.

 

[d49xc]

I'd have bulldozed the whole fking lot ASAP.
Maybe given E.Heritage 2 hours to come up with the full cash sum.
Being "cooperative" gets you walked over

Same with the frigging great crested newt found in virtually all developments.
Last one I know of had a huge row over the bleeding newts at the planning stage.
Eventually it was built with all the safeguards and associated twaddle to keep the tree huggers happy
Then the new owner came in and indeed bulldozed the whole lot and strange to report no one cared anymore

 

[Flyfisher]

Never mind great crested newts, what about bats?

When they dualled the A11 between Mildenhall and Thetford a few years ago it was established that the bats in the surrounding forestry would be 'disoriented' in some way, even though the existing single carriageway A11 had existed for decades. Anyway, the answer, apparently was to build a number of 'bat bridges' at great expense (c. £500k) so that the bats could manage to cross the newly widened road.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8827505/Bridges-too-far-The-500000-bat-crossings.html

Fast forward a couple of years after the roadworks were finished and it seems that the bats are not impressed and are avoiding their new bridges:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34605886

Not to mention other people who have had bats scupper their plans, like this report from Norwich about a couple trying to build a loft conversion:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3297775/Bat-rules-halt-building-plans.html

Despite all the horror stories (such as this one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/advice/5933116/Property-How-a-bat-can-drive-you-to-despair.html), we had no such planning issues when applying for consent to renovate our entire roof (full strip, repair, add membrane, re-batten and re-tile) nor when we applied for planning for a kitchen extension, despite concerns by our architect that we might be asked for an 'ecological survey' since the house is near ponds and a river. Perhaps we were just lucky.

When discussing this with the specialist builders who stripped and re-rendered the timber-framed part of our house, one of them related that he'd worked on old properties all his life and he'd never noticed a single bat in all that time . . . though he did seem to have something in his eye as he said it Which is strange, because we see them flying around at dusk all the time. :lol:

 

[plasticpigeon]

I feel really sorry for the land owner, and 3 cheers to him for doing the right thing, but in these circumstances when artifacts that are of importance to the nation are found, I don't think the landowner should be out of pocket. In fact I would imagine the cost of archeology would encourage land owners to find ways of destroying anything of importance for fear of the potential costs.

 

[88v8]

As a fully paid-up tree hugger, I am with the bats.
To a degree.
It's a matter of motes and beams. Until the Govt stops the destruction of ancient woodlands with the old trees in which bats roost, and the conversion of farm buildings into bijou accommodation, they have no business persecuting the churches and period property owners who inadvertently provide a relative minority of bat roosts.
The ridiculous HS2 will dislodge more bats than ever nested in all the period property in England.

As regards the lake, could they not have left the graves in situ and put a glass bottom in the lake so they could still be seen?

Ivor

 

[Flyfisher]

It's easy to blame 'the government' (of any persuasion) when it's really human population pressure that's the root of the problem.

As for period properties and the like providing roosting places, surely that shows just how adaptable bats really are, as such places can hardly be considered their 'natural' habitat.

I'm with you on HS2 though. All that cost and disruption to save 20 minutes from London to Birmingham? Still, I suppose they said that when the horseless carriage replaced horses - not that they would have said it over the Internet :wink:

 

[MatthewC]

He did have the option of not digging his pond. He could have paid for an exploratory excavation, and then when they came across the graves he could have just knocked the project on the head. You're only required to pay for a rescue dig if you're planning on destroying the site by developing it.

Digging a few test pits costs a few thousand usually, which would have been a bit of a waste, but finding the graves does not oblige you to have them fully excavated if you are willing to just cover them back up again and mark the site.

I absolutely agree with you, Abi. We found a grave under the church nave floor when we dug at the request of the authorities. It informed them of the situation (i.e. no mediaeval floor under the Victorian one) but we just looked at her and then covered her up for posterity. The archaeologist doing the dig wanted to do more and I said "you can if it's in your own time". He didn't.

As for bats, it is ridiculous that bats should have precedence in every case, e.g. even over the health of the public when bats have a roost above the altar in church - during a communion service it has been known for the sweet little things to pee... :shock: I am not even allowed to fill in the draughty gaps around the doors which have warped, in case the things use one of the gaps for entry. This adds loads to our huge heating bill :evil:

 

[Penners]

the answer, apparently was to build a number of 'bat bridges' at great expense (c. £500k) so that the bats could manage to cross the newly widened road.

Just think, all that expenditure on bridges could have been avoided if only bats could fly.

Oh... hang on......!!

 

[MikeG]

I'd have bulldozed the whole fking lot ASAP.
Maybe given E.Heritage 2 hours to come up with the full cash sum.
Being "cooperative" gets you walked over

Same with the frigging great crested newt found in virtually all developments.
Last one I know of had a huge row over the bleeding newts at the planning stage.
Eventually it was built with all the safeguards and associated twaddle to keep the tree huggers happy
Then the new owner came in and indeed bulldozed the whole lot and strange to report no one cared anymore

Wow!

Judging by this, there should be some sort of test before people are allowed to own Listed Buildings, archaeological sites, or sites with protected wildlife.

 

[LadyArowana]

Wow!

Judging by this, there should be some sort of test before people are allowed to own Listed Buildings, archaeological sites, or sites with protected wildlife.

There often is, usually someone comes along and has a good look at your bank account :lol:

 

[88v8]

It's good to have an occasional voice from outside our period-property-loving bubble.

It's easy to blame 'the government' (of any persuasion) when it's really human population pressure that's the root of the problem.

To be precise, it's net immigration, and the number of children born to immigrants.
So when you see a field being built over, or a period property being surrounded with tat, you know why.

Ivor

 

[Flyfisher]

Actually, I was thinking about overall human population pressures on wildlife on a more global basis, rather than sub dividing the problem with arbitrary lines drawn on a map.

 

[Penners]

An excellent reply, FF. Well said!

 

[MikeG]

Wow!

Judging by this, there should be some sort of test before people are allowed to own Listed Buildings, archaeological sites, or sites with protected wildlife.

There often is, usually someone comes along and has a good look at your bank account :lol:

[doffs (non-existent) cap]

That's all very well, m'lady, but I was rather meaning specifically for people wanting to purchase properties within the categories I mentioned, rather than for anyone wanting to purchase any non-specific property.

 

[Hobden]

As for bats, it is ridiculous that bats should have precedence in every case, e.g. even over the health of the public when bats have a roost above the altar in church - during a communion service it has been known for the sweet little things to pee... :shock: I am not even allowed to fill in the draughty gaps around the doors which have warped, in case the things use one of the gaps for entry. This adds loads to our huge heating bill :evil:

I remember reading an early 20th century nature book, where the author was discussing bats and said (something like) "if you wish to identify bats wait until dusk when they are swarming around a pond or stream and then discharge a shotgun into the air, when you are sure to bring some down and they can easily be identified in-hand". Today of course people suffer at the expense of bats. It's the story of this country - we never seem to hit a happy medium ...

 

[middi]

I am a lover of nature as much as I am of historic buildings.

Now, the bats, newts etc.. had existed and survived quite happy long before my small barn that required upgrading next to a moat long before that moat and that barn was constructed and erected.

When I had the long discussion with the planner and the conservation officer ,they, ( and quite right too ! ) stressed the need for surveys to be made for the protection of these species if it showed that they lived the area. Due to my immediate instinct ( due to the obvious cost involved. and a way to possibly save some money) I reminded them that my barn and moat were built long after the bats etc.. were happily living without it being there and sarcastically told them why don't these animals P*** off to where they were before they invaded my barn as they had to roost somewhere else after all and they have taken the liberty of invading my barn I did not invade they original roosting place.
They laughed and said " make sure you have the survey done"

Nanny state or what

Middi

 

[MikeG]

Some of these posts are so crazy I wonder whether they are being made just for a perverse sort of humour.

Middi, before your building was built and the bats invaded it, Britain had more woodland and meadow. Lots more. Since WW2 alone, we've lost 200,000 miles of hedgerow, between 75% and 90% of our ponds, 97% of our meadows, 98% of lowland raised bogs and approx. 50% of our ancient woodland. Pine plantations may as well be the Sahara desert in terms of bat habitat. This is without mentioning the change in farming practices, which has devastated insect populations amongst other things (guess what bats feed on).

Those habitat losses are devastating for wildlife, obviously. So before your building was built, the bats had plenty of places to live, and much more to eat. Now, they don't. As a result there have been declines in their populations which range from "significant" to "catastrophic". Now, most of the UK bat species are just about hanging on in small residual pockets.

But no, you carry on. Whitter on about your rights and the "nanny state". It's because of people with your sort of attitude that we have to have a nanny state approach in the first place.

 

[Penners]

UK bat species are just about hanging on

Here are some bats hanging on:



Lesser Horseshoe bats.

 

[88v8]

What with us being the most intelligent species n'all, one might think that we'd have called a stop to population increase in the UK. Indeed, a steady reduction over the coming decades would leave room for more hedges, woods, all those things we have lost.
But of course we don't really notice the loss. We notice the paving over of gardens, and largely shrug our shoulders. We read about percentages of this n that lost, and mostly turn away or lob a few ££ at some charity.
And we - not me, but a vociferous minority - think that the solution to whatever, is always more. More houses, roads, jobs, etc.
Never mind the natural world.

The wildlife charities won't campaign for population reduction. They put their heads in the sand and pretend that the temporary saving of little bubbles of animals and plants will make everything all right. Even Attenborough daren't put his head above the parapet because of the deluge of hate mail that ensues when he speaks on the population topic.

In Africa a ballooning population threatens pretty much all large wildlife and the surplus people spill over into Europe, along with the sad detritus of primitive tribal and religious wars.

As we retreat more and more from the natural world, move into cities, experience life through our screens, can only see this getting worse. What became of the Greens. They turned into the communists. How did that happen?

What was this topic about? Oh yes, dead people. I wonder what they would think of our country now, if they came back. Perhaps like us they would focus on their own comfort and disregard the devastation of the world that was.
Locally, I'm little better. Since we came here five years ago I've added a garage and three sheds, each has ousted some greenery. Otoh, the mice and spiders now have more places to live.

Ivor