Bet the "advisors" will keep this work for themselves

[Unitof1]

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/17/02/2012...ssland.htm

Has anybody done one of these EIAs?

[Sith]

No, but depending on their site and having worked alogside teams of ecologists for many years I would expect it to cost considerably 'in excess of ?3,000' even for a minimum (2ha) sized plot. All those Great Crtested Newts and Water Voles don't just find themselves you know.

[Marcus Brody]

It says in the article that 'Farmers will usually have to employ a professional consultant to evaluate the site, including aspects like archaeological importance, geophysical survey and ecological and visual impact assessments', which would suggest that the assessment would be undertaken by a commercial consultancy, rather than 'advisors' (by whom I assume you mean English Heritage or local government). I've never undertaken an EIA for ploughing up grassland, but I wouldn't have thought the process would be significantly different to that employed for an EIA for a windfarm or something. The article also says that only four EIAs were actually required last year, and of these only one was actually done, which suggests that even the professional consultants are unlikely to be getting fat off this type of work!

[Sith]

Those statistics also suggest that the 'Advisors' aren't recommending it.

[Unitof1]

Natural England received 156 screening applications last year - almost twice as many as in 2010, reflecting the increasing interest in ploughing out grass. Four were required to do a full EIA and one full EIA was submitted,
which is still under consideration. "We have only ever had three EIA's submitted, and the first two were allowed to proceed," says Natural England.

156 screenings twice as many 2010 call it 70, put the trend to double this year 300 thats over 500 applications and I dont imagine thats for any plot of land less than 5 acres/ 2 hectares, So whats happening at the screening level? Is it a Dont be silly you cant go ahead or dont be silly you can go ahead and you dont need an EIA let alone an archaeologist to bleed the little CAP grabbing landowners.

Maybe should remind everybody that 2013 is CAP year when the EU starts reminding us that we must be selfsucificent in landowners particularly in the event of war and that we must stuff their faces with cash so that they can subsoil which they will do, when any five year agreement comes up, oh is that 2013.And when the landowners subsoil it makes the damage done by all TCPA development look like a knats fart.

[Marcus Brody]

156 screenings twice as many 2010 call it 70, put the trend to double this year 300 thats over 500 applications

Oh My God! If it continues doubling every year, there'll be 1,228,800 cases by 2024!

And when the landowners subsoil it makes the damage done by all TCPA development look like a knats fart.

I can't decide whether this means that you're supporting the need for EIAs (providing that they're done by archaeologists who meet your own rigorous standards, i.e. you), or whether you're happy for this level of damage to be done without any consideration of the potential archaeological issues.

[P Prentice]

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/17/02/2012...ssland.htm

Has anybody done one of these EIAs?

yep thanks - and got more than 3grand for it

[Unitof1]

yep thanks - and got more than 3grand for it

where did the eia documents end up, ADS for instance?

I can't decide whether this means that you're supporting the need for EIAs (providing that they're done by archaeologists who meet your own rigorous standards, i.e. you), or whether you're happy for this level of damage to be done without any consideration of the potential archaeological issues.

both but only for the sake of argument. I think that subsoiling should be used by developers to argue that they dont need to do any archaeology on their sites as the damage done is insignificant compared to subsidized agricultureal schemes.