+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Not-so-Free Archaeology (/showthread.php?tid=5065)
Not-so-Free Archaeology - kevin wooldridge - 24th August 2013
BAJR Wrote:However... the HER is made up of already apid for information... indeed my info. ( perhaps not there ) and why should the public pay to see this info.
One way or another the public pays....if the service is to remain open then in the absence of the developer paying, the tab is picked up either by taxation paid to the government (through its grant to NMM) or by the council taxpayer through the contributing authorities. Either way there is no 'free lunch' for the public...of course I'd agree that the burden should be spread as wide as possible, but I think if there has to be a charge then the polluter should pay. Members of the public on Merseyside need to stand up and object to the planning authority making decisions based on insufficient information if that is the case....if a decision was made that affected woodland, open space, green belt without full consideration there would be an outcry!!
Before PPG16, archaeologists and friends of archaeology had to be vigilant to ensure that sites did not slip through the net. We need to return to that situation if the planning authority is failing to pick up sites in danger...
Not-so-Free Archaeology - BAJR - 24th August 2013
Interesting thoughtful...
here is an idea... there are enough of us here that can view and make informed decisions on planning apps. though we are hampered by no her. access... here are the weekly planning lists
http://liverpool.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/search-and-track-current-applications/weekly-lists/
now would it not be intersting to object to planning applications based on the reasonable grounds that archaeological conditions may be required. and we could (as BAJR) request confirmation that the planning has consulted the her. at £250 minimum charge .. that should soon rack up...
Not-so-Free Archaeology - Unitof1 - 24th August 2013
are we really hampered by no HER access. The so called HER is just a state organisation of information most of which is held in other sources as well. That a museum holds information or records or archives is a matter of their collections policy, its a collection like any other collection in their keep. Charging to look at a particular set of information on computer or on paper is no different than charging to look at objects. The council planning officers like to go around saying that they are curators was just nicking terms of museums. The basis of a lot of HERs was the basis of the museums records and other curators like ordnance survey archaeologists.
Yes put objections to planning applications to encourage the developers to hire archaeologists but let which ever archaeologist do what ever they want and then let other archaeologists complain if they don't like what the archaeologists did. We don't need HERs, only so called county archaeologists need them to justify their NOT putting conditions on planning applications. I want the developer to pay me NOT to put promises on their applications or to get rid of the archaeology before they develop.
I promise to publish if I find anything that the museum might want and I might put it in a journal if they pay me.
Not-so-Free Archaeology - archaeologyexile - 25th August 2013
In response to Unit of 1, I would agree that archaeologists do not always need the HER to conduct an evaluation, however, it is essential to persuade the planning officers that one is required....certainly that's how it works in my council!
no HER no conditions!
Not-so-Free Archaeology - BAJR - 25th August 2013
Try this one from the Liverpool lists... without knowing what has been done in teh area... where and what has been found... I fail to see how you can make an informed descision? or do we resort to pin / map interface technology...
11F/0427 – Bankfield House, Banks Road (19) Applicant McInerney/Liverpool Diocese. To erect 9 no. houses, 2 no. bungalows and 8 no. flats with associated access, car parking and landscaping (revised scheme received including additional supporting information).
here is the current aerial of the site.
http://goo.gl/maps/renmG
Not-so-Free Archaeology - Wax - 25th August 2013
Might be worth sending that to the Mersey and Dee Archaeological Society. Dont know what their e-mail contact is. Isnt one of the jobs the CBA are advertising at the momment setting out to laise with local societies to address this sort of thing? I hope so and I also hope they get an archaeologist not a buildings person. So get applying BAJRites!
Not-so-Free Archaeology - Dinosaur - 26th August 2013
Just at the level of maintaining/updating HERs [as opposed to giving planning advice]. could there be a role for local societies?
Not-so-Free Archaeology - Tool - 26th August 2013
As there appears to be an implicit political aim to get most things done by volunteers rather than paying for them if huge profits can't be dragged out of an activity, then maybe societies need to be encouraged to look into this area. Maybe societies should also be encouraged to help bring this subject into the public eye in the hope that it becomes more visibly onto the political agenda. Is there an umbrella organisation for archaeological societies?
Not-so-Free Archaeology - Tool - 26th August 2013
In answer to my own last question, yes, the CBA.
Not-so-Free Archaeology - Unitof1 - 26th August 2013
11F/0427 – Bankfield House, Banks Road
this is on a planning application: The stupid developer should already have had a archaeologist do an evaluation.
That's the law.
The reason that they have done absolutely nothing to consider the archaeology is because the developer is leaving it up to the morons in development control to do anything about it because development have not put a reminder on their planning applications.