The following warnings occurred: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warning [2] Undefined array key "avatartype" - Line: 783 - File: global.php PHP 8.0.30 (Linux)
|
South Yorkshire Archaeology Service cuts - Printable Version +- 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: South Yorkshire Archaeology Service cuts (/showthread.php?tid=4014) |
South Yorkshire Archaeology Service cuts - Marcus Brody - 20th July 2011 Unitof1 Wrote:Mr brody I applaud the motive behind your in depth defence of a system which is presumably alien law in your neck of the highland woods. Presumably your clear sightedness is based on their clearances. Unitof1 Wrote:presumably some fig leaf for your ignorance of what happens south of your virtual boarder Unitof1 Wrote:Brody of the glens appears to imagine that something called a report Unitof1 Wrote:Maybe the tartan brody may like to point us to an example or two I have to say, I'm finding the casual and low-level racism a little wearing, Unit. Honestly, are you so stuck in the 70s that you think it's acceptable to use this sort of crude national stereotyping? I assume you're one of those people who still thinks it's OK to shout 'backs to the wall, boys' when you meet someone who's gay, or to say 'goodness gracious me!' when introduced to someone from India. You know nothing about me beyond the fact that I work in Scotland - you don't even know whether I was born here, for example - but you still presume to make the type of comments I'd expect to hear from Bernard Manning. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't find this particularly amusing, and I'm sad that the standard of debate has sunk to this level. South Yorkshire Archaeology Service cuts - tmsarch - 20th July 2011 Unitof1 Wrote:Hello tmsarch Hi Unitof1, thanks for the response. The application form that you link to is the 1App form and it should be used by all LPAs in England for the submission of planning applications, not just many districts. It is the only legal way to lodge a planning application (other than for certain minerals developments). I would agree with you that in an ideal world it would be good to see archaeology included on that form, but that is not going to happen. However alongside that form most (all?) planning authorities will have their own local validation requirements and archaeology usually forms part of these - something we should welcome. Unitof1 Wrote:1. Yes on the basis that archaeology does not need council curators as far as I am concerned. I want them gone so that we can get on with doing archaeology without them and their cost. Mostly I want the archaeology to be undertaken pre determination. I think that the curators drag it into post descion too much. I don think anybody losing their job is good. I would agree with you that in some cases it would be preferrable to see more archaeological work carried out pre-determination. Beyond this point I cannot agree with you. I am interested that you see curators as being the ones who 'drag' archaeological considerations into post decission, but think that you are wrong on this point. Both developers and planners are ususally happier working with planning conditions and in my experience it is often the curators who are pressing for the pre-determination works. Planners, perhaps by their nature, seem to like conditions - it is a concept that they are familiar with and are happy to deal with. They are somewhat less keen on pre-determination assessment, particularly once an application has been validated and the 'clock is ticking' (the discussion of the failiure of the validation system is another matter). Developers also in my experience generally prefer a condition and usually ask for any archaeological works to be dealt with post-determination. This is often a financial issue - in order to secure finance for development works (including archaeology) they need to have secured planning permission in order to borrow against that permission. With the economic situation as it is developers often have a much tighter cash flow and there is simply no money to do archaeology up-front. Once they have a planning consent in place (with an archaeology condition) they use this to secure finance and then pay for the archaeological works. It is a chicken and egg situation, but developers will generally prefer a condition appraoch (less so for desk-based work, but particualrly for field evaluation). I am therefore confused how you think removing the one person (the curator) from the system who is most likely to push for pre-determination work from the system will result in more work being carried out pre-determination. Unitof1 Wrote:Much like they do on choosing brick colours and types I find this sentance odd - one of the things planners will often do on such matter's is take advice from their council's urban design/design and conservation team on such matters (not just for conservation areas). Why should a planner not be able to get the same specialist advice from their archaeological advisor (curator) with regard to archaeology as they do to the choice of bricks? Unitof1 Wrote:3. The way that it is mentioned I won't requote all of the sections of PPS 5 that you have included, but I think that you are missplaced in your reading of the document. PPS 5 puts an onuss on the applicant to provide sufficient information for the application to be determined, but in order for the Local Planning Authority to be sure that they are not issuing decissions that are open to legal challenge they take specialist advice on areas where a planner would not have appropriate specialist knowledge. Archaeology is one of these areas, but not the only one. Biodiversity, which you mentioned earlier is another. [This is where we come back to the issue of validation - an application simply needs to include this information, validation (in its present form) does not appear to allow for any consideration of the 'quality' of information that is submitted, only its presence (validate) or absence (don't validate). You ask why you can't make recommendations to the planning officer on behalf of the applicant (your client)? Well you can there is nothing stopping you doing this, but the Planning Authority will want to get independent advice as to whether your recommendations are appropriate and fit for purpose, it is them not you who would be challenged on the decision arrising from your recommendation - they do this by seeking advice from their in-house archaeological advisor] I can see that we are never going to agree on this, however in my opinion it is imperritive that any Planning Authority has access to appropriate and sound advice on all planning aspects. They could choose to take this advice from any source, but I feel that this is best sourced from someone who is accountable to that Council and can offer advice without prejudice. To get us back on track, this is why I feel that the the proposals being put forward by South Yorkshire Council are wrong, and we should all take the time to object to them. The loss of specialist advice and an HER on which to base sound decissions is shortsighted and will be extremely harmful to the heritage of the area. It is a quick and easy cut to make now, but one that will take years to undo. South Yorkshire Archaeology Service cuts - Unit of 50 - 20th July 2011 Hi Marcus, Don't expect Unitof1 to appologise. Worked with Unitof1 years ago - he doesn't seem to have changed...always held extreme views. Not surprised he isn't sympathetic to South Yorkshire or that he is the only one to support of Cllr Melton. South Yorkshire Archaeology Service cuts - Unitof1 - 21st July 2011 Quote: [SIZE=3]form that you link to is the 1App form and it should be used by all LPAs in England for the submission of planning applications, not just many districts. It is the only legal way to lodge a planning application (other than for certain minerals developments). I would agree with you that in an ideal world it would be good to see archaeology included on that form, but that is not going to happen. [/SIZE] Why not? It is the only legal way to lodge a planning application and archaeology is not mentioned. South Yorkshire Archaeology Service cuts - Marcus Brody - 21st July 2011 Unit of 50 Wrote:Don't expect Unitof1 to appologise. Worked with Unitof1 years ago - he doesn't seem to have changed...always held extreme views. Not surprised he isn't sympathetic to South Yorkshire or that he is the only one to support of Cllr Melton. No, you were absolutely right, no hint of an apology. So you worked with Unitof1 years ago? That must mean you know his true identity. In real life, is he a mild-mannered Clark Kent type, who works part-time as a volunteer coordinator for English Heritage while simultaneously drawing a fat pension from his previous career as a civil servant? South Yorkshire Archaeology Service cuts - vulpes - 21st July 2011 I have it good authority that Unit of 1 is actually Simon Thurley or was it Baroness Andrews...? South Yorkshire Archaeology Service cuts - deadlylampshade - 21st July 2011 Anyone got any news on how the meeting went? South Yorkshire Archaeology Service cuts - BAJR - 21st July 2011 REturning to the topic... thank you Deadly http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-14234071 Concerns over planned cuts to archaeological service Campaigners against cuts to the South Yorkshire Archaeological Service have said the planned loss of funding would pose a risk to local heritage. They have met with Sheffield City Council to discuss the 50% funding cut. And here: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7894887 where the first person reports: Quote:This morning i attended the SYAS joint advisory committee meeting at the town hall to discuss the proposed 15%/50% budget cut. THe stock reply to everyone who contacted them has been this: Quote:Dear insert name here and IfA response http://www.archaeologists.net/news/110720-ifa-responds-threat-50-cut-south-yorkshire-archaeology-service Quote: Submitted by Kathryn Whittington on Wed, 20/07/2011 - 10:29 South Yorkshire Archaeology Service cuts - BAJR - 23rd July 2011 Results just in! It shows that when we all pull in the same direction (almost) and utilise social networking, and write emails and letters and protest we can all be part of a change. One battle from many, but teh followjg email to one writer says it all. Quote:Dear Ms. Kennedy and from Jim Mcneil this: Quote:Maybe too early but I feel it's right to acknowledge the efforts of friends whose efforts have brought to to the position we have reached today. A return to sanity. A recognition of the value of an archaeology service. |