A taste of things to come

[Unitof1]

"free, no extra cost". Is this scotish for free, no extra cost and signed by the big black rectangle

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/...107079.pdf

sorry I forget just why are councils closing down HERs and laying off their advisors.

All I am trying to do is put forward the backup plan.-which is that all planning applications and validations should very loudly ask for archaeological consideration to be provided by the appllicant. The 1aap form inparticuler, is presented as the document that has to accompany all planning applications. Why isnt archaeology on it? Hedgerows are on it. Bats are on it. Whats on that form displayed on the internet prompts the consultations, leads the local objections. Archaeology should be on it. What surprises me is that the curators dont want archaeology mentioned on it. I would have thought that it would make their intenable positions a little more tenable, more so than some ify standard and guidence.

[P Prentice]

see you can do it nicely (nearly) and i agree

[gwyl]

180. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.

The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets? importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.

As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary.

Where an application site includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.

it all seems to be much as Unit wants in NPPF; and the great thing is, i feel, that it places an onus on employing 'appropriate expertise' be it for DBAs or fieldwork, or by implication any other form of intervention/advice and that the applicant ought to provide the necessary information as some form of a heritage impact statement - flagging this up on application forms would seem to be a bit of a given, so, yes, why isn't it?

[Marcus Brody]

sorry I forget just why are councils closing down HERs and laying off their advisors.

Because it costs the Council money, it doesn't cost the applicant anything to have the Council's archaeologist assess whether their proposal is likely to require archaeological work. Presumably if 15-20,000 applicants were asking your opinion, you'd be charging each of them something for the privilege of your expert opinion.

All I am trying to do is put forward the backup plan.-which is that all planning applications and validations should very loudly ask for archaeological consideration to be provided by the appllicant.

So all applications are accompanied by an archaeological statement prepared by someone like yourself - how does the planner know that the statement is true and credible without their own in-house advisor? Trust you? Given that you said on the Fenland thread that you'd basically say whatever Councillor Melton wanted provided he 'had enough grease', how could the planner have any confidence that you weren't just saying that there was no archaeological issue because the developer had paid you to say that? Similarly, how could they trust the professional ethics of someone who said only two days ago that he'd chuck human remains on the spoil heap rather than record them properly, 'unless there was some obvious loot?

One of the advantages of having Council archaeologists is that they're outside the commercial sector (or should be - I'm not comfortable with Council units, Trusts or Consultants who also do contracting work ). Purely as a member of the public, I prefer to have regulatory bodies, whether in archaeology or other sectors, who aren't in the pay of the people they're regulating. In the same way, I'd rather have a publicly-funded police force and judiciary, rather than one that depended on the mafia or Rupert Murdoch for its money.

[Unitof1]

By the process of objection. If somebody did not like my submitted consideration they could object. This is what happens for other considerations. There are even business set up around it http://www.planning-objections.com/index.htm

and heres a list of valide things you can object about.

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/environm...cation.htm

[tmsarch]

By the process of objection. If somebody did not like my submitted consideration they could object. This is what happens for other considerations. There are even business set up around it http://www.planning-objections.com/index.htm

and heres a list of valide things you can object about.

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/environm...cation.htm

And who decides whether that objection is reasonable? How many objections to your shoddy 'archaeological consideration' does the planner have to receive to realise that you're not actually an archaeologist, but a bought stooge? If a local resident with no archaeological background objects is this enough to counter the so called 'archaeological consideration' produced by a the stooge?

You've linked to a list of considerations against which people can object to planning applications. Great, but archaeology isn't the only one where the planner takes specialist advice... Highway safety (highway officer), Loss of trees (tree officer), Effect on listed building and conservation area (conservation officer), Design, appearance and materials (design officer), Nature conservation (bio-diversity officer), footpaths (rights of way officer)... is it all advisors you wish to do away with or just archaeological ones?

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]How many objections to your shoddy archaeological consideration' does the planner have to receive to realise that you're not actually an archaeologist, but a bought stooge? If a local resident[/SIZE][SIZE=3]with no archaeological background objects is this enough to counter the so called'archaeological consideration' produced by a the stooge? [/SIZE]

I don?t know, lets pick a trigger- one. That seems to be what happened at Walthamstow dogs. I imagine that this is what the case officers do with objections. This document has a flow chart that shows that five objections and the application goes off to the planning committee. http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=22912&sID=14095

I think that I could think up a shoddy fee to argue the shoddy consideration shoddily in front of my democratic planning committee. Most areas of Britain now have a legacy of sites of archaeological mitigation over the last decade that could / would be used to guide the arguments. Obviously it would not get this far because I would already be a member of the case officers golf party.

Come across this 2008 report, it talks about accredited agents, it does suffer from the paradigm of it will all be over by Christmas.

[SIZE=3]"We also strongly encourage local authorities not to make any dramatic reductions in the number of planning staff in reaction to the changing economic conditions, but instead to refocus resources on reorganisation, to deliver a more positive and proactive approach to development management, and on the preparation of the Local Development Framework, and, in particular, the core strategy, where this has not already been completed.This will ensure that local planning authorities are in a good position to [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]respond to the recovery when it arrives, to the benefit of all." [/SIZE]

And this is precisely what has happened they are all still there. Going by 2006-7 application rates I don?t think that two thirds of the current advisors can justify their jobs. The report has this enigmatic statement

[SIZE=3]Archaeology ? why does this need to be controlled through planning and not through another separate licensing regime?[/SIZE]

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads...report.pdf