Good times over?

[1man1desk]

Posted by vulpes, 29 Nov:

quote:I'm sorry but EIAs do lack a point if they lead to or include evaluation or mitigation and there is no curator in place to set briefs, approve specs, monitor the work etc ... The possibility of a legal challenge or public enquiry is no substitute for planning authorities having access to the advice of an impartial, experienced and knowledgable curator.

I can agree your second point (which is entirely consistent with my original post of 29 Nov), but not your first point.

The purpose of an EIA is not to generate briefs, specs and monitoring work - although all of those are very useful. Also, EIA consultants can (and do) do all of these things themselves (often giving them more time and effort than is available to the curator), although they would always prefer to have the curator's input as a starting point.

The EIA would only lack a point if it failed to identify and assess the effect of the proposal on archaeology and to identify appropriate mitigation works. The lack of proper curatorial advice can reduce the likelihood of these things happening, or can make them less effective. Nevertheless, the EIA consultant has strong incentives (outlined in my previous post) to make sure they do happen. I have been the EIA consultant in a similar position, and I came under no pressure to water-down my assessment.

Where the lack of a curator is the biggest threat is in planning applications that do not require EIA - in those circumstances there is no 'backstop' to prevent the archaeological impact slipping through un-noticed.

Other threats occur where a planning authority fails to impose suitable planning conditions, even where the EIA has identified a need for them. This can happen even where there is a curator (I've seen it happen), partly because the authority does not always ask or take the curator's advice.

In relation to legal/PI challenges - you are right, they are not a substitute for a curator; but they are an incentive to do the EIA right even if there is no curator in place.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[vulpes]

1man, I may have overstated my case a little here, sure. But, I contend that your viewpoint is overly optimistic, if only every consultant were as responsible and not placed under pressure by their clients. The presence of a curator in the case of EIA is a useful and (in my view) necessary check and counterbalance to these factors. At no point did I suggest that the purpose of EIA is to generate briefs, specs etc. Although evaluative works may be undertaken as part of the process as you well know - ES are not always just DBA+. This is because the baseline is often inadequate and there is no reason why EIA cannot and should not be seen as an opportunity to boost the baseline by doing some fieldwork. Depends on the project though..

[1man1desk]

Vulpes,

I don't think we are in basic disagreement about the need for curators - they are essential, and from my perspective as an EIA consultant they often help me to do my job more effectively (althought that doesn't mean that I always agreee with them).

However, I have been an EIA consultant now for 14 years, in two different companies, and worked for a lot of clients on a lot of different types of job. I have also recently carried out academic research into the effectiveness of EIA in archaeology, and I certainly did identify problems in that area. However, I would not conclude either on the basis of my personal work experience or on the basis of my research that EIA is useless in the absence of a curator.

I still have to take issue with something else you have said:

quote:there is no reason why EIA cannot and should not be seen as an opportunity to boost the baseline by doing some fieldwork

The results of EIA often does enhance the SMR, and it often does include evaluation fieldwork. However, it should never be seen as an 'opportunity' in that sense - the fieldwork can only be justified if it is necessary to provide information needed for the EIA. Otherwise you are obliging the developer to pay for 'research' that is irrelevant to the impact his project may cause.

One thing I am not clear about - in the specific case in Northants that has been under discussion, was there an EIA?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[vulpes]

Strewth 1man, I feel like Trolls replacement (you must really miss him!). Poor choice of words in 'opportunity' nothing more (well poor choice of sentence really!). I meant that it was sometimes applicable and useful in the context of EIA. A spin off from this would be that the info goes into the HER. Predicting impacts on areas which are largely univestigated is just guessing however you dress it up. Anyway we're so far off topic now, suggest you start a new thread in Planning Advice if you want to discuss EIA any more. 'Nuff said. As for the Northants question. Don't know. Whether it was subject to EIA or not wasn't the point - the shortfall in curatorial advice was. Read back. Ask Winders, he'll know. Over and out.

[Steve Walsh]

all of the large infrastructure projects in N'hants have been subject to EIA - mainly started prior to the previous DC Archaeologists departing, but also carrying on from this. Archaeology is being given full and appropriate treatment throughout this process. However, it is not possible to comment on the smaller projects

A trowel is a thing to lust for!

[achingknees]

Just looking at the archives following Troll's last thread and found this. Am I the Robert Peston of BAJR?! I can't find the thread, only this post, but I recall being compared to Corporal Jones in a round about way. You know who you are!!