Oh Dear what can the matter be

[Dinosaur]

They could call it a research excavation?

[Marc Berger]

has there been any excavations in those districts that don't have development control Dino

[Dinosaur]

There's development control, they're just not prepared to pay for the services of the county archaeology service and presumably just make it up themselves. Yes, I've excavated a site (housing development) under the current regime in one of those districts, so stuff still goes on, phew!

Does anyone know how it works in Cleveland, where there's still the county archaeology service (re-branded Tees Archaeology) but no county?

[Marc Berger]

Presumably the developer put it all in a 128 statement, undertook an desktop, did an evaluation...without having to agree a WSI, just produced one themselves and gave it to the authority and got on with it, leaving monitoring down to the ifa and the public. Who needs a County archaeology service?

[Dinosaur]

Does IFA do monitoring?

[Marc Berger]

It uses the word and various of it roots in its guidance although I don't think that they ever say why they want monitoring when archaeology is all about producing observances which presumably imply monitoring. I suppose that we could differentiate levels or orders of monitoring. County types seem to think its important and presumably have insurance so that they can go onto private land and monitor hartfully.

[Alastair]

leaving monitoring down to the ifa and the public. Who needs a County archaeology service?

So in your ideal world, planners just let you get on with it and don't trouble their pretty little heads about archaeology?

And BTW, the public already monitor archaeological work in advance of development. They do it through the planning system, via their elected representatives in local government, and through the officers those representatives employ to provide the necessary expertise for monitoring.

[Marc Berger]

So in your ideal world, planners just let you get on with it and don't trouble their pretty little heads about archaeology?

I am not keen on two tier government systems. This thread was started on the two tier seems to have come apart in West Sussex. I am in agreement that the public and other archaeologists can monitor the archaeology through the planning system. I am in favour of what I interpret para 128 to say which is that every planning application should be accompanied by an assessment of heritage asserts which at a minimum might be evidence that the applicant has consulted an HER. I think the point of it is to present heritage in the planning application and encourage the public and the LPA to take the assessment into consideration for the decision. But that's not what I see happening with almost every application round my way. So the public and I don't get to participate in any monitoring in the planning process.

What seems to go on is that the planners in the higher tier employed by a politic not directly responsible for local planning authority appear to be wholly underfunded understaffed and to run this system have interpreted 128 as triage, and basically run the system like ppg16 and so commercial archaeologists are still being approached by developers after the developer has the permission and conditions which are evaluations or recording. The two teir system leaves almost no expertise in the local planning authority made worse because the HER and museums are non local either. What showed up in west sussex is the lack of who pays for what in all the legislations and policies. West Sussex appear to have claimed that what they supplied was non statutory and there does not appear to have been a counter claim. I presume that they have been left with the HER because of Statutory Instrument 1995 No.418 which has the words county council but even that is really a tenuous claim for a HER.

[kevin wooldridge]

There is a very simple (and inexpensive) way to improve the archaeological planning system. Simply designate all archaeological sites as 'protected' and require the powers that be (heritage experts, curators, planners whatever) to set mitigation conditions that would permit any potential development.....this would guarantee that every permissive authority had to take expert archaeological advice. The default situation (applicable to the majority of developments) would be that it wouldn't be allowed unless accompanied by expert advice.....

[Marc Berger]

But nothing's simple. There appears to be a little bit of your system in SI 418 by which s
" sites of archaeological interest" are designated by "resolution" by "county councils" if you twist the words of the SI about a bit. It could appear to confer a county schedualed monument status but I would suggest that it still comes up against the two tier planning system which puts a lot of the current development under the LPAs.
To my mind SI 418 should be drafted to make the LPA the Authority which would make more sense for NPPF. It would also move the funding requirements to the LPA level. NPPF has got that nasty little caviat

30 Copies of evidence should be deposited with the relevant Historic Environment Record, and any archives with a local museum or other public depository.

which does not describe the landscape of most LPAs which is that the museum is at best a county store. Again it seems to me that if NPPF want LPAs to actually feel the responsibility of taking heritage assesment into their desicion making that it would be a lot clear to,them if they were also having to find the money to run a local archaeology museum and local HER.