Conservation Management Plan - Tamworth Borough Council

2.3.26 Archaeological evaluation
Where a desk-based assessment does not provide sufficient evidence for confident prediction of the impact of any
proposed new work, it may be necessary to establish the extent, nature and importance of the castle’s significance
through on-site evaluation.
This may be achieved through a number of techniques, some of which may be potentially harmful to the fabric
of the castle or its archaeological deposits and will need careful consideration. These include ground penetrating
radar, trial trenching, test pitting, x-ray and other forms of remote sensing, geo-archaeological borehole
investigation, laser survey, opening up and building analysis and recording.
The necessary professional standards and practices should be adhered to for permissions for consents. English
Heritage should be consulted in advance regarding scheduled monument consents for evaluation. The Institute for
Archaeologists has published standards and guidance for desk-based assessment and on-site evaluation.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B3; D1; D1.2; D3
2.3.27 Protecting the archaeological significance
PPS5 draws a distinction between archaeological and historic interest with regard to protection and management.
In the case of the castle and its bailey, the interests of future expert archaeological investigation need protecting.
This includes not only potential evidence buried beneath the turf of the bailey area, or within the ditches, outer
gatehouse and motte, but also evidence of different phases of construction and demolition contained with the
fabric of the walls and buildings that make up the castle and its associated outbuildings.
Therefore repointing and repair of walls should always be preceded by a rapid archaeological assessment, and
recording, and all interventions should be recorded and archived. The context in which any archaeological evidence
is found is crucial to furthering understanding.
Where there is archaeological interest, conservation decisions should be aimed at sustaining the asset or the
relevant part of it, in a condition that would best suit the prospects of a future expert investigation. Any activity,
such as significant repointing, replacement of original stonework, or replacing original floors and roof structures,
or wall finishes that impairs the prospects of future archaeological investigation therefore harms the significance of
the castle.
This can make much of the castle, as a scheduled monument, very sensitive to change.
The archaeological interest of the castle can remain even after an excavation.
As techniques and the understanding of our past improve, a previously investigated area can be revisited, for
example using non invasive techniques such as geophysical survey, and targeted excavation to see what further can
be learned.
Instances of this are the bailey area that was partially excavated in 1960, the ditch at the base of the motte and the
apparent outer bailey ditch excavated on the Peel Arms site.
For all works requiring scheduled monument consent and/or planning permission a written scheme of investigation
will be required, see standards and guidance produced by the Institute of Field Archaeologists
(www.archaeologists.net).
Advice on what is proportionate and appropriate can be sought from in-house experts within Tamworth Borough
Council (you don’t currently have this expertise in house), expert advice from English Heritage (Inspector of Ancient
Monuments), experts available through agreement with Staffordshire County Council (there is no formal service
level agreement at present), or professional consultants.
In many cases of more minor loss where there is no archaeological interest, appropriate recording may amount to
no more than deposition of the plans showing the alteration with the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B1; B3; D1; D1.2; D3
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
79