Whats in their briefs?

[BAJR]

Does it matter? As long as either you OR the Planning archaeologist makes it clear. I hope you inform them of the requirement - and not just rely on others to do so. There is no compare and contrast, there is only the requirement. Whether or not the LPA make this clear or not. you should do so - given your duty to the archaeology and the client. ( the one who pays for your services and advice)

[beamo]

Beamo Which LPAs don't issue briefs?

Pretty much all of the ones that I have dealt with in the last few years - just racking my brain to remember when I last saw a brief - possibly for a job in Worcestershire. Usually I offer to submit a draft WSI for comment and the lpa archaeologist agrees as they are too busy to write briefs unless this is requested of them.

Beamo

[BAJR]

Yup me too Beamo... I write a WSI based on the planning requirement. saying how I will tackle the project....

perhaps it is different down Marcs way.

[Marc Berger]

Hosty I am not trying to wind you up here. We work under the same crown (do we?) but different common laws, which makes things mud clear, maybe archaeologists should call these laws local customs or traditions. As you have said in Scotland the law is the law so even if you didn't tell your clients anything you would not be contravening any of the dictates of the IFA.(the one that says:In England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man ) not Scotland so you are not experiencing the compare and contrast by those who pay me for advice that the IFA have decided is supposed to be specified in a brief and WSI in the Republic of Lincolnshire.

I would like to learn a lot more about your system which the IFA does not seem to need to give instructions for. I particularly am interested in what an "Unclaimed certificate" looks like and all its administration as well what happens if a metal detectorist turns up will some gold but will not say where they found it. I am also interested in the Scottish museum Act of 84 and how ownership ist transferred from the Crown to the Museums as I see that they have the right to sell (although I am not as interested as I am in the 1964 Libraries and Museum Act but I imagine that theres a long way to go to get any significance out of that.

Beamo they don't let you have briefs. How do they let you or your client know anything and how they do they consider that fits in with the six tests of the NPPF. You say Worcestershire. I don't know it but I presume that its a two tier place I am really looking for briefs set by LPAs rather than any higher tiers to do with waste and infrastructure. Out of interest when you write your WSIs do your relate it to any specific paragraphs of the NPPF?

Hosty I was wondering that if after a few days of waiting to see if anybody could direct me to a brief with an ifa ownership clarity statement in it that I could ask for examples of briefs from around England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man if only to bring Northern Ireland into the frame as they are left out of the 1964 Act that I am interested in ((as well as Scotland) , I imagine they have their own Common law,) of recent briefs so that we could see what Prentice means by

it is spectacularly missing from loads of lpa briefs and in fact is worded to imply that objects have to be deposited in a museum or planning conditions will not be discharged

.

[Marc Berger]

Yup me too Beamo... I write a WSI based on the planning requirement. saying how I will tackle the project....

perhaps it is different down Marcs way.

I don't know...I think that down my way they have miss-interpreted NPPF but it gets confusing trying to take in different common laws. Round my way I am interested in briefs. I put it in the title. You will not find briefs mentioned in NPPF, Beamo does not seem to require them to write briefs and hosty seems to have a "planning requirement" Hosty does NPPF apply in Scotland? Is a planning requirement a brief? and what I mean by that is what does Cifa consider it to be?.

If you have no briefs this is not a thread for you, you are obviously already in the promised land.

[Marc Berger]

Hosty Nobody seems to have been able to come up with a brief which mentions ownership rights as per IFA guidance. Would it be alright to post briefs here which show what they do instead, obviously suitably redacted?

[BAJR]

Scottish Government 2011 Planning Advice
Note PAN 2/2011: Planning and archaeology.
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2011/08/04132003/0


Nobody seems to have been able to come up with a brief which mentions ownership rights as per IFA guidance....

1) Is it an issue... the law is after all the law...
2) I take it you mention it in your proposal to the client.


I guess the most important aspect of this is how this is so important to you, but strangely nobody else seems to have an issue? Everyone else manages... but you seem strangely worries about not complying with an CIfA fieldwork standard


To return to your first post...

3.6.4 In England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man ownership of objects rests with the landowner, except where other law overrides this (e.g. Treasure Act 1996, Burial Act 1857).

The archaeologist undertaking the fieldwork or the planning archaeologist must make this clear at the inception of the project (in the brief, WSI or project design).

Read "The archaeologist undertaking the fieldwork or the planning archaeologist" So that is either YOU or the Planning Archaeologist ... If the planning Archaeologist does not mention it, then you should... after all you will be producing a WSI or Project Design, and should be including it there... not a problem in your well written WSI or have you omitted this vital piece in teh assumption that the planning Archaeologist had mentioned it in "the brief" which you read but did not see it mentioned.

So... What is this actually about.. ? How is it a problem to you?

[Marc Berger]

As Prentice has said

it is spectacularly missing from loads of lpa briefs and in fact is worded to imply that objects have to be deposited in a museum or planning conditions will not be discharged

If it was no big deal why have the CIFA kept it as a specific Standard? Where it is a problem is in it kinda defines being English and Welsh as apposed to Scottish and I don't mean that offensively. It appears to be about English/Welsh human rights. Although CIFA point out this unfortunate Welsh/English trait they still go on about archiving as if it is a forgone conclusion. NPPF ignores ownership and pointedly makes requirements.

141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of
the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development
management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to
record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets
to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance
and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated)
publicly accessible.30 However, the ability to record evidence of our past
should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

They should also require developers to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publically accessible and tells us where: Copies of evidence should be deposited with the relevant Historic Environment Record, and any archives with a local museum or other public depository.

I am not after the loot, what I am interested in is when and what is "required"? When should this evidence be made publically accessible and what is the evidence for? I think that this is what is being ignored by the curators in their zeal fill Museums with CBM with post determination conditions that threaten unlawful development.

I think that NPPF is asking for pre-determination public presentation of evidence to contribute to the reasons for the planning application Decision and I think that there should also be a "where" which is local, at least in the Local planning Authority area. I think that it would bring out some purpose from the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1964/75

[BAJR]

Still none the wiser of why this is such an issue to you but nobody else...

[Marc Berger]

I hope that you don't know how many times in the last few months I have been asked how come this is not a problem to other archaeologists but I still have all the finds that I have dug up.