+- 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: Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations (/showthread.php?tid=3983)
Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations - GnomeKing - 24th June 2011
Synchronisity
Regional Roots - (regional future?)
" 1973 was the year of the units, or at least it would have been.
Following a meeting called by the Department of the Environment
in February it seemed that the country was rapidly
going to be divided up into fifteen multi-county units, ... Throughout the spring and
summer the argument for and against units was waged. Eventually
in the autumn an announcement that government
expenditure on archaeology was to be increased to just under
.?1 million for 1973-4, but this of course was well short of
the global sum required for the establishment of the fifteen
proposed regional units. Gradually as discussions between
the CBA, the DOE, local authorities and museum authorities
progressed the vision of an archaeological Camelot receded.
.... At the time of writing (January 1974) the Oxfordshire
Archaeological Unit is the only independent county organization
in existence."
http://www.cba-southmidlands.org.uk/CBA%20SMA/4%201974.PDF
Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations - Marcus Brody - 25th June 2011
I'd have thought that the proposed removal of archaeology as a planning issue, with all the resultant destruction of sites and job losses that this will cause, would have been sufficiently serious to override the usual tendency on this board for threads to descend into divisive squabbling, but perhaps not. If archaeologists can't agree that proposals such as those put forward by Councillor Melton are a bad thing and present a united front in response, what would it actually take for us to stop sniping at each other and turn our collective fire on those who genuinely deserve it?
I'd also like to highlight another inconsistent element in the Councillor's statement. In the full text of his speech, available here (https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1106&L=BRITARCH&F=&S=&P=139432), he says to developers that "The days of the Local Authority employing expensive consultants to evaluate your proposals are gone. If you have an issue with highways, environment agency or whoever, you deal with them and then present the results as part of your application." Maybe I'm being particularly obtuse, but isn't that how pre-determination archaeological evaluation is supposed to work - the developer pays for the evaluation and presents the results to the planning department in support of their application. If it's good enough for highways, environment agency or whoever, why is archaeology singled out for different treatment?
Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations - Wax - 25th June 2011
I am not sure GnomeKing is disagreeing with the general flow of this thread. However he has a point in that archeaology is a part of the process of managing " necessary change" within our environment. That is what PPS 5 was addressing. It looks to me as though the councillor has a personal axe to grind and I do wonder which unit managed to get his back up so much. Do we have a failure of archaeologists and conservationists to communicate with a very vital part of our audience?:face-stir:
Personally I do not think over priced housing that no one can afford to buy is "necessary change"
Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations - moreno - 25th June 2011
Marcus Brody Wrote:I'd have thought that the proposed removal of archaeology as a planning issue, with all the resultant destruction of sites and job losses that this will cause, would have been sufficiently serious to override the usual tendency on this board for threads to descend into divisive squabbling, but perhaps not. If archaeologists can't agree that proposals such as those put forward by Councillor Melton are a bad thing and present a united front in response, what would it actually take for us to stop sniping at each other and turn our collective fire on those who genuinely deserve it?
Well said. The CBA, IFA, Rescue and other orgs have managed to present a united front. As a collective whole, where was BAJR (i.e. BAJRites)? There are individuals who have taken up the challenge, GPstone and several others, who are organising a response through e-mail campaigns, facebook, a website, the media and press. I really struggle to relate and understand the lack of purpose, not all, but enough, BAJRites show. It's a shame really.
Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations - Wax - 25th June 2011
I too think the situation is appalling and Councillor Melton is way out of order, but I am wondering why the Councillor thinks this way is he just another big bad developer who has been primed by central Government to put a shot across the bows of " conservationists " or is there much less to it than that. Whatever response is put forward it must not be a knee jerk reaction it must be well thoughtout and argued and not primed to get the backs up of the developers and local councillors (much as some of them might be derserving of it). A united front is great but rising to an obvious bait is a sure way of getting caught.
Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations - Marcus Brody - 25th June 2011
Wax Wrote:I am not sure GnomeKing is disagreeing with the general flow of this thread.
I wasn't really referring to GnomeKing, it was more in relation to the discussion about Oxford County Council Archaeology Department and the tendering process, and a statement which was made to the effect that if the Councillor had enough money, he could find an archaelogist to support his viewpoint ("If melton has the right grease I am his archaeologist, I can show his point a hundred times over-I have got a passport that says archaeologist" )
Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations - moreno - 25th June 2011
Wax Wrote:I too think the situation is appalling and Councillor Melton is way out of order, but I am wondering why the Councillor thinks this way is he just another big bad developer who has been primed by central Government to put a shot across the bows of " conservationists " or is there much less to it than that. Whatever response is put forward it must not be a knee jerk reaction it must be well thoughtout and argued and not primed to get the backs up of the developers and local councillors (much as some of them might be derserving of it). A united front is great but rising to an obvious bait is a sure way of getting caught.
Very true Wax. While reading some of the initial responses, this seems to be the case; a cautious response. To be a player, you have to be involved.
Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations - Wax - 25th June 2011
Sorry MB I tend not to read much of Unit of 1's posts and responses too them (unless I want a good giggle
). Though that said some times there are gems hidden in there
Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations - GnomeKing - 25th June 2011
EVALUATION-OF-ARCHAEOLOGICAL-DECISIONMAKING-PROCESSES-AND-SAMPLING-STRATEGIES
this document is of key holistic interest - i will dissect it when i have time -
A united front is one thing > but these are not all new issues, or out teh blue > systemic problems in the proffeion remain, and may indeed be contribting to the views of ignorant MPs, financially savy Developers, and public opinion.
What is it that is being produced?
Just look, for example, at the 1974 CBA newsletter linked above - packed with info, enthusiasm, with a clear purpose, authoritative.
Now, lets delve the InterWeb for something a little more recent and compare.....a publicly accessible document archived publicly and commissioned by a council...we could probably find out how council paid for it...
how about this....http://library.thehumanjourney.net/21/1/BROXLC07.pdf
...i wont mention any names on this forum, but with Host permission (and when i have a moment) I would like to de-construct it a little, based on its structure, purpose, content, and internal logic...
I think it illustrates perfectly how our own unconsidered practice gives ammunition to those who would (perhaps even legitimately at times) seek to give Business and Industry a free hand on the Land.
"Localism" and Corporate Archaeology are strange bedfellows perhaps?
If we are going to have to have to lie down in front of the Bulldozers again, then lets not do it unconditionally in support of systems which are themselves in need of fixing. - a more extreme threats can be used to cement an already existing Bad Idea. - the damaged caused by the catastrophic loss of planning control does not mean that Privitae-Commercial-Corperate delivery of non-comodities (such as Archaeolgoy) is a Good Idea.
By protecting valuable services from the worst of the Financial Vampires, we must not forget how far there is to go to repair the damage already inflicted through commercial competition. Very easy to strengthern the status quo by rasing fears of the Undead.
Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations - Tizzy - 25th June 2011
1974, takes me back to my first job in archaeology with the Museum of London DUA, the days of art grant funding, pre-commercial archaeology, pre-PPG15 & 16, pre-PPS5 & pre-Cllr. Melton's most useful contribution to the debate on how best to or not to in his case preserve or investigate our heritage!