Article 3 of Valetta

[Paul Barford]

Of course it would be "absurd" which is why Valettaa's article 3 states the state should be instituting formal procedures to supervise this, but the paragraphs of PPG16 you pointed to - however you want to extend their meaning - do NOT actually say the same as Article 3 which Britain has not implemented in any way since signing the 1969 convention and and its revised version and (quite apart from the question of the status of PPG16 itself) I am puzzled why you are trying to make out they do.

Paul Barford

[historic building]

Paul PPG 16 is a guidance document that provides the boundaries in which planning authorities write their archaeology policies published in their UDPs. I am very happy to say all the boroughs in my patch have included within the explanatory paragraphs in their UDPs that archaeologists should be suitably experienced and qualified. There are no qualifications as to what types of archaeological work the archaeologist has to be suitably qualified to undertake. Out of the districts I have previously worked in I cannot think of one which has limited its UDP to follow this part of PPG16. This is how the Planning Policy Guidance is applied in practice.

This interpretation of PPG16 has been supported in enquiries into UDPs all over the country and I believe that the interpretation of what represents a 'suitably qualified archaeologist' has also been challenged and judged upon by the Local Authority ombudsman and upheld.

[drpeterwardle]

I will try and comment more fully later. Valetta is a European convention and means that euro countries which are not part of Euroland have signed upto it.

Valetta in my view is not compatible with many other aspects of Euroland law. It is a convention and should be seen as such.

valetta refers to all archaeological work and not just that covered by the planning system. Historic building is incorrect on his interpretation of PPG 16. The approval bit only comes in post permission not pre-permission. There is an absurdity if the defendant cannot choose his/her own advocates in both common law and under the terms of the Human rights act. A developer must be allowed to choose their own archaeologist.

There is however a complicating factor if as consultants we are acting as expert witnesses, as in court, where we have a duty to the court not to the client.

Peter

[historic building]

Of course any developer can employ any archaeologist they want. If they chose someone who is not qualified or experienced to undertake the work they place themselves at the risk that any documents produced or work undertaken will not be of a suitable quality to inform on the likely impacts on archaeology of the development proposed.

With pre-determination works if the developer wishes to rely on these as part of a planning application they take a very great risk that it will be rejected or further pre-determination works will be required.

[Paul Belford]

I have just returned from Poland where at the EAA conference there was a whole session on Valetta, its implementation (or otherwise) by signatory states. This included a paper by someone who was part of the initial negotations, as well as views from colleagues throughout Europe on the effectiveness of the convention.

Some points relevant to our discussion, that arose as I remember them...

"Qualified and specially authorised" does not equate to "Chartered or Licenced" - a deliberate vagueness of phraseology in the convention document.

There was considerable discussion about the wording of section iii in respect of metal detecting. The original wording was stronger but was vetoed by the UK representative as it was felt that the convention could not be ratified by the UK parliament with the original wording.

Valetta and PPG16 were quite parallel processes, which happened more or less at the same time and so there is a lot of one in the other. So similarities are not accidental, they were intended back in the late 1980s.

A couple of general points...

There are numerous subtle but important differences in wording between the official English-language and French-language versions. Such as, for example, the requirement for full publication (much stronger in the French version).

There is a lot of divergence between the practical implementation of Valetta in the UK (very advanced) and with other signatories of the convention. Others have chosen different ways of implementing it in view of their cultural, social and economic situation.

The full (English) text can be found here.

The full (French) text can be found here.

The table on this page shows who are Parties (P) and Signatories (S) of treaties relating to Culture, the Valetta convention is No.143.

I hope this is useful.

[Orkynowot]

TO me section ii sugests that, very few people would be actualy able to cary out work on site, my university centered on theoretical not the practical aspects of archaeology, so only those people that have done field worked based degrees are the ones qualified to work on sites!!!!!!

Orkynowot

May god go with you in all the dark places you must walk.

[garybrun]

I know a person who wouldnt have been happy with the UK representatives veto.
Seriously though... is the Valetta a threat to diggers and other traineee archaelogists and I am sure that many will be struggling for work if the Valletta was implemented in full which many are trying to force this issue through.

We can discuss the aspects on metal detecting in the detecting part of Bajr not in this area if required?

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.