+- 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: Yep..time for another hypothetical game (/showthread.php?tid=431)
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - Unitof1 - 16th February 2007
âIf you know of a legal mechanism that allows access for archaeological works to be enforced against the landowner's wishes, then please let me know as it would make my life much easier on a number of current schemes and would provide much work for field archaeologistsâ
Ask the landowner to appoint their own archaeologist at the developers expense. The total cost of the archaeology undertaken is then the amount of compensation paid to the landowner-as in the developer pays for the archaeology to be undertaken and this is the value of the archaeology that the landowner has to be compensated for....
Oh archaeology its that important
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - troll - 16th February 2007
Thank you to all for your input.This has certainly opened a comprehensive debate and reflections from all are most welcome.For me, it would be easy to drift into yet another rant on the subject of standards but, the bigger picture is the most disturbing by far. The systemic failures at critical milestones in the life-history of the project resulted in the complete removal of a significant prehistoric monument.In simple terms-this monument should and could have been avoided altogether.As a voting tax-payer, one would have expected the major players like Curatorial archaeologists and English Heritage to have at least questioned any justification for its removal.The manner of its removal is a separate issue here-the debate relating to archaeological issues in a competative environment has continued on other threads on this forum-the focus of attention has to be at the planning level.It was here that decisions were made resulting in the entirely avoidable destruction of said monument. Thanks are due to the contributions of consultants and curators on this forum who, for a long time now have hung the "legislative" skin upon the bones of the process we all work within, we now have a reasonable understanding of just how complex the pre-ex phase of any project can be.The management of projects from inception, through birth to completion can become exponentially more complex as the project evolves.This is a reality, we do work in an increasingly litigative industry. In my little world, I naively believe that when the word "compromise" appears in the closing moments of PPG 16, it is written once because it simply means once.I don`t believe that the spirit of the document would encourage compromise at every stage/phase of the projects lifetime.This has a nasty habit of dilluting the original intention until at the point of trowel, the original intention is no more than a distant parallel.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - 1man1desk - 16th February 2007
The issue of access to land, raised by previous contributors to this debate, may be key to this problem site.
The position is this:
Access to land is required to enable surveys to take place. At the pre-determination stage, the land will all still be in private ownership.
Normal practice is to seek access to land by agreement. However, in the event that a particular landowner is uncooperative, under the Highways Act the relevant Highways Authority has the power to serve a notice enforcing access. Crucially, this power is largely limited to surveys that would not disturb the ground - the only exception is for geotechnical investigations.
This means that if a particular landowner doesn't want trial trenching on his land, it can't be enforced. The mechanism suggested by Unit of 1 wouldn't work, because it is just a more complicated way of setting things up with a landowner who does want to let you on.
Under these circumstances, the only thing you can reasonably do is identify the area that you wanted to trench but couldn't as a risk area and make provision to investigate it post-CPO. Unfortunately, this is too late in the process to allow redesign to avoid unexpectedly significant discoveries. It is both possible and common practice on well-managed projects, however, to have a 'risk pot' of money available to cover all sorts of environmental and other contingencies (mostly non-archaeological, of course).
If the risk has been flagged up and an allowance made for it, then there shouldn't be a problem with getting the money to beef up the mitigation work once you realise you've got something bigger than expected on your hands.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - troll - 16th February 2007
Good day sir-hope your well.
I do of course accept that land ownership can be an issue and may have played a part here.To echo your sentiments, surely, a contingency should have been built in particularly as the monument could be seen as a largely"unknown quantity" if indeed, denial of access was an issue.As an aside, the "unknown" quality of the monument would surely have prompted a more comprehensive assessment by the curatorial staff-if anything, bolstering the argument for avoidence or the scheduling of the monument.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - 1man1desk - 16th February 2007
I agree with you entirely about the contingency.
However, decisions on avoidance or Scheduling need to be made on the basis of the best information available at the time. On the face of it, the information available at the time would not have justified Scheduling - the National importance of the site couldn't have been predicted without intrusive works, for which land access was necessary ... all a bit circular, I know.
Avoidance may have been justifiable (or even advisable), but we can't say unless we know more about context. For instance, would realignment have caused a different environmental impact (e.g. destroy a nationally-important wildlife habitat, or demolish a house, or destroy another archaeological site)? Again, that decision would have to be made on the best information available at the time, which was the results of the geophysics.
In other words, to comment meaningfully here, we don't just need the desk-top survey (previously mentioned by Dr Pete), we need the whole Environmental Statement.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - troll - 16th February 2007
Agree entirely sir.Unfortunately, in a commercial environment, members of the public don`t gain access to that level of detail.Neither, ironically, do a percentage of professional archaeologists in the field.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - monitor lizard - 16th February 2007
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
Agree entirely sir.Unfortunately, in a commercial environment, members of the public don`t gain access to that level of detail.Neither, ironically, do a percentage of professional archaeologists in the field.
But they can - an Environmental Statement, or DBA for that matter, are submitted as part of a planning application, which makes them publicly accesible by law. We have objectors to various schemes calling up all the time to view such documents. Planning authorities cannot withhold access to this material. And now, when so much of this detail is submitted electronically and put on-line in places like the planning portal, you don't necessarily have to visit the planning departments.
Cheers
ML
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - 1man1desk - 16th February 2007
Posted by Troll:
Quote:quote:Unfortunately, in a commercial environment, members of the public don`t gain access to that level of detail.Actually, they do. By law, all Environmental Statements must be made available to the public, and the 'competent authority' (usually the local council) has to publicise them in the local area. The Highways Agency puts the Non-Technical Summary of all its Environmental Statements onto its website, and sometimes the whole report. Some Councils (e.g. Lincolnshire County Council) do this as well.
Paper copies of the ES are normally made available in libraries, council offices etc. Members of the public can also ask for a copy of their own - although they can be charged the cost of production, which may be very high.
There is an increasing move towards electronic publishing of Environmental Statements specifically to reduce the cost of providing extra copies on request, thereby making public access easier. Instead of anything up to 1000 pages of paper, you get a CD with a PDF on it. Cost of production - virtually nil.
In addition, there is often public consultation at earlier stages, although if you don't live locally you may not know about this.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - troll - 16th February 2007
Rightyho, will do just that although I think that charging me between 25 and 60 quid for the information is a bit much-not exactly "freedom of access" is it?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - beamo - 17th February 2007
Troll
Try the local libraries in the vicinity of the scheme - alternatively ask the planning officers or even the archaeological consultants involved in the EIA to send you a copy of the relevent chapter, although it may well be better to see the whole document so that you can see how other EIA disciplines may have been involved in the decision-making.
Beamo