Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services

[Unitof1]

Dear ifa do you think that a developer should first go either to an archaeologist or to a curator before proposing a development.

[Martin Locock]

all the planning advice says curator first

[Unitof1]

not sure where planning advice (is it in some standard) says curator first but maybe this should be stated in the standard-

No archaeologists must be approached before permission from an "advisor" to the authorising authority...

[Dinosaur]

all the planning advice says curator first

So we've wasted the last couple of decades getting clients into the mind-set of coming to us first to smooth things by making sure they have an acceptable scheme when they approach the curator? And there's us thinking we're doing the responsible thing by reducing the workload on over-stressed curators.....Oops :face-crying:

[Martin Locock]

The guidance says that they should approach the curator in advance of submitting any sort of application or scheme, so that they can then take account of archaeology in their proposal (perhaps by engaging a consultant or contractor). Similar screening for EIAs.

[Martin Locock]

I should say, having now checked, PPG16 was explicit in saying curator first, PPS5 less clear.

[kevin wooldridge]

The guidance accompanying PPS5 says 'Engagement with the relevant local authority specialists can be particularly helpful in developing an understanding of significance and in identifying the level of information needed to support an application'.....but it doesn't suggest that this should be the first (or the last) step in the process. The fact that in the guidance text the 'engage' suggestion follows (rather than preceeds) 'undertake a (desk-based assessment' consult the HER etc' might indicate that the thrust of PPS5 isn't rigidly designed with the first thought being 'consult the curator'...

[Martin Locock]

Yes there has been a definite shift - perhaps because it's much easier for developers to scope out the potential risk on online HERs, rather than having to consult the council?

[Dinosaur]

Yes there has been a definite shift - perhaps because it's much easier for developers to scope out the potential risk on online HERs, rather than having to consult the council?

That's slightly different from contracting an archaeological consultancy to carry out a scoping study? No point going to a curator until you've even decided where in an area you might want to site your eg. controversial gravel quarry, wind farm or nuclear dump, merely gives the potential protestors an advance heads-up.....

[Dinosaur]

Oh, and following on from what I seem to recall is one of Jack's favourite themes, more and more developers are getting stung by 'cheapie' DBAs and ESs done by environmental consultants getting kicked back by curators as inadequate so they still have to shell-out to have it done again properly by a specialist archaeological outfit - one of those has just landed on my desk, as if I didn't already have enough to do :face-crying: