Project Name: Attleborough SF Planning Application Reference: 3PL/2021/0236/F (Breckland DC) Applicant: Pathfinder Clean Energy

Archaeological challenges and how communication and joint working resolved them:

Following discussions with the local planning authority archaeological advisors, it was decided that pre-determination archaeological desk-based assessment and geophysical survey were suitable techniques to use at the pre-determination stage. It was understood that if post-determination trial trenching revealed remains not identified in the geophysical survey, then the location of those remains would be reviewed against the proposed solar farm and mitigation measures would be taken.

In this instance, the results of post-determination trial trenching revealed remains not visible in the geophysical survey data. There were fourteen separate pieces of land in which remains worthy of mitigation were revealed. In all cases, the decision was taken to preserve these remains in-situ. In the case of the most significant area of remains, a small area of Roman settlement, the remains were identified by geophysical survey and this was removed from the development area. The other areas needing mitigation were within the proposed solar farm and development went ahead using techniques which preserved the remains in situ.

The construction process was monitored by archaeologists and the preservation process was recorded in this way. Areas of land which needed intrusive cabling were monitored and recorded.

Archaeology and Solar Farms Good Practice Guide, which can be viewed by following this link was published in 2026. How does this way of working link to the new Guidance document?

This example is useful as it highlights the limitations of non-intrusive evaluation and at the same time shows that developers and archaeologists who are already anticipating what they can do in response to new data, at the post-determination stage, can do in response to that new information. Mitigation areas were discussed and agreed and the exact method of mitigation was scoped and then monitored to ensure success. These steps are in line with Principle 9 within the new Guidance.

PRINCIPLE 9 Mitigation Options Should Balance Archaeological Sensitivity With Relative Impact