+- 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: Oh Dear what can the matter be (/showthread.php?tid=5744)
Oh Dear what can the matter be - Marc Berger - 7th October 2015
Can NPPF para 141 be interpreted to mean that local means within the local planning authority area?
Oh Dear what can the matter be - P Prentice - 7th October 2015
Marc Berger Wrote:Can NPPF para 141 be interpreted to mean that local means within the local planning authority area?show me a curator who knows anything else
welcome back slothrop
Oh Dear what can the matter be - Marc Berger - 7th October 2015
Thank you. I don't expect it to be for long. The force is weak.
What's a curator ? I would like it to be a finds specialist who maintained a type series......not an educator who thought the lowest common denominator needed some time series.
Oh Dear what can the matter be - Alastair - 9th October 2015
I think it depends on whether you're in a unitary or two-tier authority. The area covered by a Local Planning Authority may not have an appropriate museum or archive office to enable deposition, especially if that sort of thing is dealt with at a county rather than a district level. In such a case, you would need to deposit your archive somewhere outside the LPA area. I don't think the NPPF can safely be interpreted to mean "deposition must occur within the boundary of a LPA".
I think the safest course is to take "local" to mean whatever is stipulated in the planning condition, or in any local guidance. See what your LPA think.
Oh Dear what can the matter be - Marc Berger - 15th October 2015
To be safe my local Planning authority have an unwritten arrangement with the County that was "arranged" in 1990 for archaeological services. That it was not recorded, and even its title is obscure and in accounts is referred to as N/A, and has not been reviewed since 1990, means that both county and district don't know what to think. I would suggest that to be safe the L in LPA should mean local and LPAs should be resistant to contradictions.
Does anybody know what have been the outcomes of the removal of archaeological advice for LPAs in West Sussex? It would be nice to imagine that the Local Government Ombudsman has insisted that each LPA retained and provided a local HER and employed local archaeological advice based in a local Archaeological Museum. Presumably to get that to happen would need somebody to go through a complaints procedure.
As you came through the door you would immediately be transfixed by my three fluted jug handle typology series.
Oh Dear what can the matter be - P Prentice - 16th October 2015
Marc Berger Wrote:...It would be nice to imagine that the Local Government Ombudsman has insisted that each LPA retained and provided a local HER and employed local archaeological advice based in a local Archaeological Museum.
As you came through the door you would immediately be transfixed by my three fluted jug handle typology series.
who are you?
Oh Dear what can the matter be - Marc Berger - 17th October 2015
A local digger with copyrights thankfully principled on English landowners ownership rights
Oh Dear what can the matter be - Marc Berger - 28th October 2015
Quote:We've got the weird setup 'round here where in one of the counties, most of the District Councils don't use the services of the County Archaeology Service, which makes the whole process a bit strange, there are jobs where you're effectively consultant, contractor and curator all in one since you're the only archaeologist involved in the entire process, and everyone else pretty much has to go along with what you say...has been going on for years
Sounds like the future, which districts? Shouldn't you be doing all the archaeology before the application is put in?
Oh Dear what can the matter be - Dinosaur - 29th October 2015
Marc Berger Wrote:Shouldn't you be doing all the archaeology before the application is put in?
Ahahahaha...ooh, spilt my coffee
No developer's going to spends 100ks (or millions) on unwanted archaeology unless they've got an assurance they're going to be allowed to build something afterwards!
Oh Dear what can the matter be - Alastair - 30th October 2015
Quote:No developer's going to spends 100ks (or millions) on unwanted archaeology unless they've got an assurance they're going to be allowed to build something afterwards!
And no planning authority should allow an excavation for the purposes of mitigation unless the development is almost certainly going to go ahead;
NPPF 136 - "Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred."
So while an evaluation purely for the purpose of informing a planning decision or condition (that is to say a WSI for mitigation) is acceptable under national policy (para 128), undertaking a full excavation prior to determination of the application most certainly is not.