Modernising Scheduled Monument Consent

[BAJR]

CBA and English Heritage pilot study looks at opening up the SMC process to the public.


The CBA and English Heritage have been conducting a pilot study to look at ways in which consultation on scheduled monument consent applications could be introduced for the national amenity societies, local planning authorities and other interested parties. Under current arrangements applications affecting scheduled archaeological sites and historic buildings are not decided within the planning system and are not open to public comment.


The project aimed to explore how consultation could actually work in practice and enable a more open decision-making process. After a three-month trial period, looking at cases in the Yorkshire and Humber Region, a report of the consultation pilot study is now available. The findings suggest that modernisation of the SMC application process and alignment with the policy principles for planning and the historic environment are among the essential first steps. It appears that the percentage of SMC applications that is likely to merit detailed comment is relatively small but will include highly sensitive cases.


One particular aspect that the CBA is keen to explore further is the degree to which greater public benefit can be identified and encouraged as a specific element in applications, so that there are more opportunities for involvement in archaeological evaluation or recording and presentation on site of conservation work in progress.

[Unitof1]

The document says that it?s a cba study not eh as well. It calls it a study but there not much data with in it. It says that it was carried out after consultation with eh and spab and they sent a copy to jcnas.

In what way did this study open smc up to public scrutiny? eh sent cda its list of applications which cba had a look at presumably pretending to be the public. Somewhere in the report it then says that it?s just like pre application in TCPA isn?t it:

[SIZE=3]There is a substantial level of pre-application discussion in SMC cases (50% or higher), and significantly more than is usual for LBC applications. This means that the proposed works and supporting documentation for the application have usually already been agreed with EH, and perhaps specified if there is an archaeological component, prior to submission. Comments by CBA or another national amenity society after submission could mean that EH then has to revisit discussions and perhaps modify or condition an application. This would have implications for the timescale of decisions and applicants would have to be aware that there might be subsequent changes in requirements.
[/SIZE]

also neatly dropping any mention of how the public should be involved and introduces us to the shadowy world of national amenity societies and this one page world wide web page

http://www.jcnas.org.uk/

who the cba are members of.

And the chairman is http://www.thebestinheritage.com/print.aspx?id=783&OriginalUrl=/about-us/john-sell-biography/

And that?s an interesting eu

http://www.thebestinheritage.com/home/ (that hosty might like to link to)

Anyway does this part of the cba press release really get your attention

[SIZE=3]One particular aspect that the CBA is keen to explore further is the degree to which greater public benefit can be identified and encouraged as a specific element in applications, so that there are more opportunities for involvement in archaeological evaluation or recording and presentation on site of conservation work in progress.
[/SIZE]

I found no mention in the wonderful report of any attempt at any archaeological evaluation or recording. So why mention it? cdb pretending to be an archaeologist again.

I cant work out from the report if eh has to change its ways or not. Its like they are pre-empting PSS5 happening to them before it happens to the curators in TCPA

[P Prentice]

i see a strange hypocrasy in your stated offence to the cba representing the public and your gleefull purport to represent archaeologists just because you have filled out a context sheet unit.

[Unitof1]

Not sure that I have ever claimed to represent archaeologists. I do have a selfish view as to who are and who aren?t commercial archaeologists and I do think that the cba belongs to the era before commercial archaeology. That the cba is possibly losing a large chunk of funding from the government (believe it when I see it) might make them more representative of the ?public? but the cba appears within this study and through membership of so called national amenity societies to be trying to gain statutory status within planning legislation like some outsourced eh.

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/news/090820-amenitysocs

I imagine that every civil servant in the country wants statutory status and all that implies

All I have done is try to point out that when somebody says its doing something for the ?public? watch out. In this case they claimed that they were looking to study some system within SMC for public participation but actually no actual public guinea pig was hurt in the process. I don?t know why they suddenly thought this important nor do I know where they funded it from?but isn?t that what you would expect from a statutory authority?(ehhh?)

[P Prentice]

Not sure that I have ever claimed to represent archaeologists. I do have a selfish view as to who are and who aren’t commercial archaeologists and I do think that the cba belongs to the era before commercial archaeology. That the cba is possibly losing a large chunk of funding from the government (believe it when I see it) might make them more representative of the “public” but the cba appears within this study and through membership of so called national amenity societies to be trying to gain statutory status within planning legislation like some outsourced eh.

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/news/090820-amenitysocs

I imagine that every civil servant in the country wants statutory status and all that implies

All I have done is try to point out that when somebody says its doing something for the “public” watch out. In this case they claimed that they were looking to study some system within SMC for public participation but actually no actual public guinea pig was hurt in the process. I don’t know why they suddenly thought this important nor do I know where they funded it from…but isn’t that what you would expect from a statutory authority…(ehhh?)

ok valid points