Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
vulpes Wrote:why all the talk of HERs? There are standards for HERs already, covering all manner of aspects and overarching documents such as http://www.ifp-plus.info/ . blah blah blah 
I was using HER as a shorthand for historic environment advisory services, given that the thread was originally about the IFA looking for consultants to research and develop good practice guidance and an IfA Standard and guidance on the provision of archaeological advice by historic environment advisory services.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
[quote=Unitof1]I could not imagine a tendering situation in which HERs would be involved in the tender or two HERs or what needs codifying in a guidence. That an HER might produce a brief I understand (not that that?s in pss5) but they don?t conduct the tender. Where the HERs are screwing the tenders is by producing evaluation briefs post determination. It seems to me that if they require an evaluation post determination then according to pps5 they did not get adequate information with the application so could not have accepted the application.
what you may be seeing is a mountie recommending predetermination evaluatiom and being ignored or a f***up between planners and the stubborn insistance on eval anyway - happens all the time. you've probably digested more of pps5 than most planners anyway
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
P Prentice Wrote:what you may be seeing is a mountie recommending predetermination evaluatiom and being ignored or a f***up between planners and the stubborn insistance on eval anyway - happens all the time. you've probably digested more of pps5 than most planners anyway
This certainly happens. Up here, most Councils now have online planning systems where all documentation relating to an application can be viewed online, and I imagine it's the same in England. I've found that in most cases that I've looked at, the Council archaeologist will have advised pre-determination evaluation as the preferred course, possibly saying that evaluation under a condition would be a less-acceptable alternative, but the planner decides to use the condition. When I asked a curator why they included the option of a condition when they would prefer pre-determination, I was told (off the record) that if a condition was not included and pre-determination evaluation is given as the only option, a lot of planners will simply grant the consent without any archaeological work taking place. You can argue that the curator should stick to his-or-her guns, and insist on pre-determination evaluation, but ultimately it's the planner that makes the decision, and apparently a large proportion of them prefer a simple condition to an arguement with a developer about why they should spend money undertaking work which might result in their not obtaining planning consent.
I feel this post may fall foul of RedEarth's proscription on preteniousness (and if it didn't before, that last sentance will have surely pushed it over the edge!)
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Quote:I was using HER as a shorthand for historic environment advisory services
Well don't. They aren't the same thing.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
27th May 2011, 02:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 27th May 2011, 02:55 PM by Marcus Brody.)
Oh for God's sake! If I'm going to be pulled up for pretentiousness, I'd like to make a plea for a reduction in pedantry. I'm well aware of the destinction between the HER (the record of the various sites, monuments, buildings, landscapes etc that make up the historic environment, as held in a database or similar) and the historic environment advisory service (which maintains this record, and uses it to provide advice to the planning department on the impact of development proposals on the historic environment). In popular terminology, however, the two terms are used virtually interchangably. Honestly, you must be one of those people who insist on calling a hoover a vacuum cleaner unless it's made by the Hoover Corporation, or always refers to a ballpoint pen unless it was manufactured by the Biro Company!
And P Prentice, some of my posts have been
way more pretentious than the last-but-one!
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
...... but mostly verbose
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
P Prentice Wrote:...... but mostly verbose
That's a fair comment, some of my posts have been fairly long. However, if you're trying to conduct a reasoned argument, sometimes it takes a few words to put your point across. If you'd prefer, we could all take turns at proposing a statement, then everyone else can post either 'Yup' or 'Nup', but I don't see how that would be a discussion.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Quote:
ultimately it's the planner that makes the decision, and apparently a large proportion of them prefer a simple condition to an arguement with a developer about why they should spend money undertaking work which might result in their not obtaining planning consent.
thing is, is this what the consulants standard going to sort out?......so whats really needed is a standard for the planners. Does any of you curators know who I joe public should complain to that pss5 has not been followed by the planners?
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
27th May 2011, 03:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 27th May 2011, 03:13 PM by Marcus Brody.)
Unitof1 Wrote:Does any of you curators know who I joe public should complain to that pss5 has not been followed by the planners?
Head of Planning at the Council
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
