Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
2nd February 2006, 12:28 PM
I find when a land owner appears to have intentions of keeping artefacts that a few words about conservation, storage and the implicated costs often persuades them to hand over the goodies.
Paul Blinkhorn's case sounds very frustrating. I've never encountered any squabbling over pottery; more usually metal items. Obviously the landowner / developer needs some gentle persuasion by EH, County Archaeologists and local museum.
I would have thought that planning permission would have stipulated the usual about depositing the archive at a named location. Isn't the developer therefore contradicting the planning consent?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
2nd February 2006, 12:40 PM
I agree Sparky - the requirement for stringent recording of all objects if they are not to be deposited at a museum almost always puts people off - especially when they actually see what the "artefacts" they usually own are. This stipulation should be written into WSI's before work commences on site.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
2nd February 2006, 02:39 PM
Sparky wrote:
'I would have thought that planning permission would have stipulated the usual about depositing the archive at a named location. Isn't the developer therefore contradicting the planning consent?'
This can be quite a tricky issue - the written archive (including graphics etc) remains the property of the contractor and the WSI will usually commit the contractor to placing it in an recognised depository (assuming that there is one available to accept it). The artefacts/ecofacts (with the exception of human remains/items covered by the Treasure Act) remain the property of the landowner, and the WSI usually commits the contractor to make every effort to persuade the landowner to sign over legal title to the depository so that these can go with the rest of the archive.
Some Briefs issued by curators, and the corresponding WSIs, seek to commit the landowner to certain conditions if they wish to keep some or all of the artefacts, such as proper conservation and storage in a suitable environment, public access etc. I have never been too sure of the legal aspects of this.
If the landowner takes back the finds from the contractor (bearing in mind that this might be several years after the fieldwork for a major excavation), removes all the finds from the bags, scrapes the context number etc off each sherd, puts all the finds in a few old boxes and dumps the lot in a landfill site, what comeback can there be from the planning authority or any other authority ?
Sorry Mr Landowner your actions are not in line with what was agreed in the WSI 10 years ago to meet planning condition no. 26, and this condition is now deemed to have not been adequately discharged. We would therefore request that you demolish the 100 houses that were built on this site - Oh, you've sold them all into the private sector and that would mean taking enforcement against 100 home-owning families who consider that they purchased their houses legally and with all conditions discharged. I think not.
Have any curators ever come across this situation, or will this fall into the same category as 'what to do with developers who have failed to adeqately fund publication but against whom enforcement action is extemely unlikely' ?
This is a matter of legal concern - either we go down the Scottish route of state ownership of all artefacts (Note - this is not an attempt to start a debate on the matter with detectorists), or we give curators (through planning or otherwise) far greater powers to keep archives intact and available.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
2nd February 2006, 02:55 PM
Maybe the condition could include the entire site archive in the requirement to be deposited etc etc i.e. the artefacts and ecofacts as well as the written/drawn record? Don't know how legal this would be at present, might require a Section something.
Plus of course, the developer may not be the landowner.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
2nd February 2006, 03:04 PM
Beamo said: "Sorry Mr Landowner your actions are not in line with what was agreed in the WSI 10 years ago to meet planning condition no. 26, and this condition is now deemed to have not been adequately discharged. We would therefore request that you demolish the 100 houses that were built on this site - Oh, you've sold them all into the private sector and that would mean taking enforcement against 100 home-owning families who consider that they purchased their houses legally and with all conditions discharged. I think not."
In reply to Beamo, I never said that or insinuated it. The instances of changes to the planning consent without proper consultation happens often and, as you point out, after its too late. In the case of Paul Blinkhorn it is the developer who is refusing to hand over the artefacts. As it is a developer I would assume that they must be known to the council planning authorities and are quite likely to have a working relationship with them. Wouldn't it be preferable to strike them off as a recommended developer? Or are we drifting down the road of restraints of commerce? However, I'm not afraid to say that, yet again, no doubt local politicians are up to their necks in it and nothing will ever happen outside the linning of their pockets.
Have any curators ever come across this situation, or will this fall into the same category as 'what to do with developers who have failed to adeqately fund publication but against whom enforcement action is extemely unlikely' ?
Its been a while since I've seen this as a problem and when I do come across such incidencies its been the fault of bad archaeological budgeting.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
2nd February 2006, 03:12 PM
How can you have a recommended developer and what would you strike them off? Anyone can develop i.e. submit a planning application.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
2nd February 2006, 03:29 PM
Thats what I'm asking. I'm sure that there must be a 'Bad Boy' list....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
2nd February 2006, 03:43 PM
Well. Actually, I didn't ask that at all. But I would have thought there would have been some sort of regulation. Anyone?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
2nd February 2006, 04:35 PM
Not that I'm aware of. I don't really see how anyone could be forbidden from making a planning application if they wanted to. Each application and any subsequent development is a seperate event. LIke using the same building contractor on two or more contracts - you can't allow one to affect another - say you can't withhold payment on one job because they screwed up on another.
You could simply wind up the company and start up a new one. Of course the majority of applications aren't from "property developers" as such.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
2nd February 2006, 04:48 PM
So, a recidivist to the planning process will never be denied planing consent. Seems like there's a gaping hole in the system.
