+- 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: Thornborough "debate" (/showthread.php?tid=2060)
Thornborough "debate" - beamo - 15th February 2006
Essentially there is a difference of opinion between two sets of archaeologists (EH and the applicant's consultants) regarding the significance of the remains within (part of) the application area. EH feel that one area contains remains of national importance, the consultants feel that the remains are of (presumably) less than national importance. This is critical with regard to PPG 16 which establishes a presumption in favour of preservation in situ for nationally important archaeological remains when affected by proposed development.
As Venutius states, 'English Heritage wants the remains preserved in situ'.
I want to return to an issue which came up earlier in this thread (I hesitate to search back too far, but I think that it was actually best spelled out by a local authority planner at North Yorks rather than an archaeologist).
The only role for the local authority with regard to the preservation in situ of these remains (whatever their significance) is the determination or non-determination of the planning application that has been submitted. It is not currently within the power of the local authority to protect the remains other than by refusing to allow any activity that requires planning permission.
My question is 'If planning permission is denied, can preservation in situ actually be achieved ?'
There has been much discussion here regarding the current impact of ploughing on these features - but whether or not impact is occurring, what is there to prevent the applicant from encouraging (implictly or explicity) the tenant farmer to increase the depth of cultivation in the area of (?)nationally significant remains to the extent that the remains are destoyed within a few years? The applicant could then put in another application and demonstrate (through evaluation) that there are no longer any significant remains present and that this no longer contitutes a reason for refusal.
Potentially even more controversial, what is there to prevent the applicant from engaging an archaeological contractor to undertake an archaeological excavation of these features (for research purposes ?) - an activity that would not require planning consent. Again this then may leave the door open for another application.
As far as I can see the only way that preservation in situ can be achieved is for EH to schedule the area of important remains as soon as possible following the determination of the current application, and to make sure that the class consent for agricultural use limits the depth of cultivation.
I would like to hear views on this issue, especially from any curators who have been faced with a situation whereby possibly significant remains on a potential development site have been 'removed' through activities that did not require planning permission.
Beamo
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 15th February 2006
Hi Beamo,
A nicely put question. This is an issue that has been a central train of thought to me for quite some time. I have drawn my own conclusions but seek further annectdotal evidence so I too would welcome comment from those with actual experience.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 16th February 2006
Here is the full officers report. 9.9 and 9.11 are interesting.
http://www3.northyorks.gov.uk/n2cabinet_comm/planningregulat_/reports_/20060221_/ladybridgefarmt/ladybridgefarmt.pdf
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - Tile man - 16th February 2006
Potentially even more controversial, what is there to prevent the applicant from engaging an archaeological contractor to undertake an archaeological excavation of these features (for research purposes ?) - an activity that would not require planning consent. Again this then may leave the door open for another application.
I hesitate in putting this up on a public forum - but the situation is more fundementally flawed than you imply. If a contracting unit were used there is a good chance that there will be peole involved who are in the IFA, and so accountable for their professional conduct.
However, outside of the planning and scheduling system or any volentary schemer the landowner may enter - what protections are on offer for the archaeology? The only standards would be acting on those involved who had imposed professional standards on themselves by joining the IFA. There is nothing to stop the landowner carrying out their own 'archaeological excavation' certainly no requirments for health and safety, project designs, archiving, finds analysis, publication, dissemination, appropiate excavation and sampling methodologies etc etc etc.
This I hope underlines why the current system falls well below the obligations of Valletta - and why I believe it is important to strive for a systsem of chartered archaeologists ( professional and avocational) being required for the conduction of any archaeological project ( see other threads...)
sorry this sounds a bit like a sermon...
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 16th February 2006
To be honest TileMan whilst I see issues regarding amateur involvement I think I'm right in saying that Thornborough means your suggestions are all the more salient and urgent. I suspect there are a lot of developers looking at Thornborough and wondering how best to avoid "pesky" archaeology from getting in the way of profits.
The next site is not going to be so simple I'm sure, and I'm aware that campaigns such as Thornborough are hardly going to save the majority of archaeology that is being lost innapropriately.
I hope that the current situation is able to galvanise a bit more momentum towards this than we have seen so far.
There are massive changes required in just about every area of archaeology. It is clear that the lack of discussion is not due to lack of need, more like a lack of faith that positive change can be affected.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - monitor lizard - 16th February 2006
Is it likely that Tarmac will appeal the decision?
ML
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 16th February 2006
I don't think its likley that Tarmac will allow te decison to be made, but if they do, yes, they will almost certainly appeal.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - archaeophobe - 16th February 2006
It should be noted that the decision has not yet been made.
The officers have recommended refusal. The actual decision will be made by the relevant planning committee, which is comprised of democratically elected councillors.
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 16th February 2006
Yes this is true, the decision will be made at a planning meeting to be held on 21st of Feb 10.00AM at Masham Town Hall.
I think it is likely that Tarmac will withdraw the application or ask for a further delay rather than face refusal, which is looking likely.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - Tile man - 16th February 2006
There are massive changes required in just about every area of archaeology. It is clear that the lack of discussion is not due to lack of need, more like a lack of faith that positive change can be affected.
Like you I hope to see galinisation take place!
I would say, though, that a lot of discussion is taking place at all sorts of levels, granted not as publically or visibly as a lot of us would like. We can all contribute as individuals, through the differnt groups and organisations that we belong to. Initialtives like the Heritage link
http://www.heritagelink.org.uk/index.asp
demonstrate that it is possible to join forces effectively to agree on strategies to bring about the changes we all want.
I also think that comparitely few real changes could have a profound efect for the positive on this whole sector, and allow the structures that this country already has to act in the ways that they want to. and I am afraid that lobbying to make the right things happen, takes an awful lot of meetings, discussions and paperwork, as well as leafletting demos and the rest of it
at the risk of sounding pious, and giving away my political allegiences, I have always found thois quote from an old gren party manifesto inspiring
We must do what we conceive to be the right thing, and not bother our heads or burden our souls with whether we are going to be successful. Because if we don't do the right thing, we'll be doing the wrong thing, and we will just be part of the disease, and not a part of the cure -- EF Schumacher