Quote: [SIZE=2]Dear Sir,

it was with much amusement, but mounting horror, that I read your barely coherent speech about Bunny Huggers and relaxation of archaeological requirements.

I am sure that as a quantity surveyor and advisor to LEA Developments, you should be aware of the legislation now in force with PPS5. If not, I would quickly read up on it, including paragraph 3

[SIZE=3]The policies in this PPS are a material consideration which must be taken into account in development management decisions, where relevant.[/SIZE][SIZE=1]5 [/SIZE][SIZE=3]Therefore the development management policies in the PPS can be applied directly by the decision-maker when determining whether development should proceed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]
[/SIZE]

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps5
It hardly looks optional?

Presumably, leaving aside national planning policies, the Council also has local and structure plan policies relating to the treatment of archaeology (and other environmental issues). These will have taken years to prepare and will have been agreed by the Council as a whole, so it's questionable whether they can just be completely disregarded on the say-so of one Councillor who happens to disagree with specific elements of them.

You also seem to be confused about the difference between 'bunny huggers' (presumably ecologists) and archaeologists (mud fondlers? skeleton botherers? trowel jockeys?). You also seems to be under the impression that global warming will in some way result in an expansion of the ice sheets, leading to polar bears floating down the Nene, when surely the result would be less polar bears, or a reduction in their habitat.
'Bunny Huggers' was a term used by Prince Philip recently as a throwaway comment about animal welfare groups in a BBC interview.

"PRINCE Philip last night dismissed people who rabbit on about animal welfare as “bunny huggers”. The conservationist railed against those who are overly concerned about the plight of animals – even though he was international president of the World Wildlife Fund.

So do please consider your remarks and the offence they cause and the context within which you make them.

You may be interested in discussions underway at a variety of archaeological national organisations : including here
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1106&L=BRITARCH&F=&S=&P=134683


[/SIZE]your sincerely

Quote:

Dear Cllr Melton

Thank you for your short reply. I am sure your time is taken up with this issue.

I would however suggest that you were not aware of the law, as you specifically stated in public that:

"I can announce tonight, that from the 1st July. A requirement for an archaeological dig/survey will not be required. The requirement will no longer feature at pre-app. Or form part of the committee agenda."

Was this true or were you playing to the crowd and in reality offering something that you could not possibly deliver? I can but note that you are now suggesting that you were starting a debate, however, nothing within your speech suggest a debate, but rather a fait accompli.

On listening to your time on Radio 4 it you went on to what can only be described as a train crash of understanding about what commercial archaeology represents, how it works and the process and framework it is carried out within. Indeed as a commercial archaeologist myself, it is often the archaeological company and fieldworkers who are under pressure to complete within a specified time and it is a rare construction site that is ever delayed due to excavation. Even then excavation is a last resort to both preserve the archaeology and minimize the costs to a developer – with evaluation of development sites with potential acting as ‘insurance’ for the developer, protecting them against an nasty surprises during the construction phase.

I am as ever baffled at your continued use of vested interests and the fact that commercial archaeology is a business as some form of argument, though I am unsure what this argument is, you will of course be aware of vested interests within all professions, including builders and developers and those who work within them, for them or because of them.

You made comment about money from one excavation which would have “been better spent on the school and teachers”. I was unaware that the money allocated for construction would also be used for teachers pay, could you confirm that this is council policy?

Perhaps you are now wishing the speech had never been made public, and now that it has, you must consider your actions and replies more carefully. Perhaps you may consider learning more about commercial archaeology in order to fully understand the process, the benefits and the potential to support economic growth in your district and across the UK, rather than continuing to hit out blindly at what you are now realising is not such an easy target.

Archaeology is a partner to development and economic growth, not its enemy – the idea it can be swept aside is not up for debate.

Yours sincerely

David Connolly

Quote:Dear Councillor Melton,

so you are confirming that the money spent on archaeology would have been spent on teachers?

Again, you seem to be trying to convince yourself that you were starting a debate - I am not one for semantics, but a debate does not normally start with a definitive statement of what you will do.

I am sure you are fully aware of the connections of Neal Wade and archaeology for many years - perhaps not.

I would suggest that a debate also has two sides listening.

Do you regret saying bunny huggers? Do you regret saying that archaeology stifled development? Do you regret saying that on the 1st of July there would no longer be a requirement for archaeology in the planning process?

I only ask, in terms that this is a debate which can then step back from mutual antagonism into a reasonable forum that analyses the issues that you clearly have.

As a matter of interest - in you former life as a brickie, you suggest you had bad experiences, would you be able to elaborate, or are they only vague memories?


Yours sincerely

David Connolly
British Archaeological Jobs Resource

Quote:And even if he does know the law, he seems willfully ignorant of planning guidance and policies, both at a national and local level, which again is not a quality I'd look for in appointing someone to make pronouncements on development issues. Aside from anything else, it would seem to have the potential to make the Council as a whole look a bit silly!