+- 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: a dangerous precedent?? (/showthread.php?tid=2148)
a dangerous precedent?? - sniper - 23rd February 2006
from the Virtual-Lancaster website, about the recently discovered Roman tombstone and the plans that the developer has to sell it to the highest bidder to cover the costs of the excavation. Opinions please?
16/2/06: Council leader Ian Barker has stepped into controversy over the Roman gravestone recently found in Lancaster during the building of a block of flats, which property developer Chris Tudor Wheelan is proposing to auction at Sotheby's, suggesting it might raise almost ?58,000.
The Times reported last week that Britain might lose the arefact, which depicts a mounted trooper holding a sword and the head of a man he has just killed, archaeologists say is a unique find, to an overseas buyer.
Councillor Barker has now written to the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, asking her to refuse an export licence if this happens.
The gravestone, which has been dated to 1st or early 2nd century, is currently being dried ot at the County Museum in Preston.
Councillor Barker said that, as far as the City Council was concerned, planning permission was granted with archaeological conditions attached. There was an obligation in the development agreement not to dispose of any important archaeological finds.
"No one could have anticipated finding a stone of such significance," says Councillor Barker, "but it was known that this could be an important archaeological site.
" Planning permission was only granted on condition that a proper archaeological investigation was carried out. The costs of this should have been built into the development, so its more than a little opportunistic to seek to recover them just because something really important has been found."
"This stone is an important relic of Lancaster's Roman past," says Coun Barker. "In my view it should stay in Lancaster and the public should be able to see it. It shouldn't be sold into a private collection or sent abroad. I will certainly be asking officers of the City and the County Councils to do all they can to enforce the obligations attached to the planning consent."
"I've asked Tessa Jowell to refuse an export licence if this is sold abroad, so that we have a chance to keep the gravestone in Lancaster."
Mr Whelan told the Morecambe Visitor this week that he has invested a lot in Lancaster and he was not looking to sell off its heritage.
"But I would like to cover my costs," he told the paper. "I had to pay a total of about ?39,000 to have the digs completed under the planning regulations and, with the delay to the building that resulted, I reckon it's cost me about ?50,000, which is a lot to recoup.
"I've already been contacted by someone who offered to buy it as long as it remained in Lancaster," he added, "and that's what I'd like to happen ? but we'll have to see what develops."
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
a dangerous precedent?? - troll - 24th February 2006
Hideous.A developer whining about ?50 grand? And 39 grand for an excavation? He really should think himself lucky.I`ve seen larger budgets for lunch. If his defence for blatantly depriving the local tax-payers heritage is based on losing an amount less than a third of one new (average) house-sod him. Charge him with theft.The local council have made the right move-Come on Tessa, show us that you actually have a grasp of reality in this case and whoop his arse!
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
a dangerous precedent?? - archae_logical - 24th February 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by sniper
Councillor Barker said that, as far as the City Council was concerned, planning permission was granted with archaeological conditions attached. There was an obligation in the development agreement not to dispose of any important archaeological finds.
"No one could have anticipated finding a stone of such significance," says Councillor Barker, "but it was known that this could be an important archaeological site.
" Planning permission was only granted on condition that a proper archaeological investigation was carried out. The costs of this should have been built into the development, so its more than a little opportunistic to seek to recover them just because something really important has been found."
"I will certainly be asking officers of the City and the County Councils to do all they can to enforce the obligations attached to the planning consent."
Do councils still have enforcement officers to see that planning conditions are met? They did in Harrogate District not many years ago.
E
a dangerous precedent?? - Digger - 24th February 2006
Read this the other day Troll. I wonder if he managed to save money by buying the cement cheap through a mate at the pub? Saved a fortune on reinforcing by using old shopping carts? Says it all about some developers. Mind you I had a WB the other day where the workers had already stopped before I had arrived (I watch Time Team and we thought you'd be interested in that). They also didn't complain when I shut the site down for 3 days.
Anyway this bloke is obviously a right *@$??%%. From memory this may fit into the small print of the Treasure Act whereby it's not made of precious shiny stuff but has intrinsic rarity, importance to the Nation, etc etc for parliament to act upon. So contact your local tos... er elected member (both word fit surprisingly!).
a dangerous precedent?? - Hugh - 24th February 2006
A similar topic.
http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2006/DCMS_015.htm?month=February&properties=archive%5F2006%2C%2Fglobal%2Fpress%5Fnotices%2F%2C
a dangerous precedent?? - Orkynowot - 24th February 2006
I heard about this as well I want it to stay in Lancaster, as thats where it was found as does the person who excavated it, or at least it should remain Britain to sell it and let it go abroad could set a dangerous precedent in my view allowing developers to take advatage of situations like is he looking to sell all the artefacts or just this one, if the developers did not budget correctly then it is there fault.
Its bad enough when others nations heritgae is sold legally or illegally, but it is something worth harrasing the culture minster about.
Keeep archaeology where it belongs. Keep it local.
May god go with you in all the dark places you must walk.
a dangerous precedent?? - ladyjen - 26th February 2006
So, the developer wants to "recover his costs". Does he seriously expect us to believe that his development won't be profitable as a result of the archaeological works. If this is the case then perhaps, having been quoted ?39k for the works, as well as a specified length of time in which they would be completed (in the form of the archaeological unit's tender for the work), he could have recognised that it wouldn't be profitable to continue with the development and built his shoebox houses somewhere else? Or is this just a case of him being greedy?
a dangerous precedent?? - 1man1desk - 27th February 2006
If the work was done under a planning condition, then presumably there was a Written Scheme of Investigation to control the work.
If the WSI was up to scratch, it should have detailed what would be done with the archive, including all finds. If so, the developer is bound by it, or else will be in breach of his consent.
If the WSI did not detail these requirements, then its author (and the curator who approved it) are at fault, and may be in breach of the IFA Standards and Guidance for Excavation (or Watching Brief?) (assuming they are members of the IFA).
Therefore, there are two potential lines of attack - enforcement action by the local authority against the developer, and a disciplinary complaint to the IFA against the offending archaeologists. The latter won't remove the problem, but it will make others think more carefully when writing similar documents.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
a dangerous precedent?? - beamo - 27th February 2006
This is just like deja vu all over again - we've been having this discussion elsewhere on the Forum very recently.
The WSI would have included a paragraph along the lines of 'the archaeological contractor will endeavour to persuade the landowner to provide written consent for the finds to be deposited along with the rest of the archive'. This is all that can realistically be achieved within the current legal framework - any attempt to use a WSI (and therefore a planning condition ) to get a landowner to sign away legal title to objects as yet unknown is unlikely to stand up to any sort of legal scrutiny.
WRT to the IFA, the Standard and Guidance for Excavation indicates (3.9.4) that the archaeologist has a duty to inform the landowner of their rights as regards ownership of artefacts. It goes on (3.9.6) with the point above regarding endeavouring to persuade the landowner to sign the finds away, and then (3.9.7) to provide guidance on how to ensure some level of integrity of the archive in the event of the landowner keeping hold of some or all of the finds.
Nothing in the IFA Standard and Guidance indicates that an archaeologist would be in breach of their duties by not drafting a WSI (or approving one) that compels the landowner to hand over all of the finds, and I would suppose that there is a very good legal reason for this.
What we need is a change in the law that brings the rest of the UK in line with Scottish law regarding 'newly-discovered ancient objects'. Any chance of that in a country where large landowners still dominate the legislature ?
Beamo
a dangerous precedent?? - historic building - 27th February 2006
Quote:quote:If the WSI did not detail these requirements, then its author (and the curator who approved it) are at fault, and may be in breach of the IFA Standards and Guidance for Excavation (or Watching Brief?) (assuming they are members of the IFA).
Land owners own whatever is found in their land. This is a historic common law principle. Briefs, specifications etc. can only recommend that archaeological finds are placed wherever is considered suitable in that district. I am currently dealing with a landowner, who at the outset, has said that they will retain all archaeological material 'because this bloke in Lancaster is going to make ?100 grand'.