1st June 2005, 09:30 AM
The main thing to remember when it comes to our relationship with planning officers is that PPG16 is only guidance and isn't statutory, and that we're only advisors in the process. Therefore if a planning officer wants to ignore what we say, or decides it's unimportant he/she can. I've seen recommendations for work ignored or forgotten by District planners, conditions discharged early so fieldwork isn't finished or post-ex isn't done properly, and inadequate or wrong conditions put on by Planning Committees or Inspectors at appeal. I'm also one of only four archaeological staff (more than in most Counties I believe) working in a non-archaeological organisation of about 15 thousand, whose management pretty much (in my opinion) views the whole subject as being fairly insignificant compared to its policies on housing, schools, rubbish, council tax, bus services etc. There are loads of conflict of interests - especially when Government slaps your County with a massive great housing allocation to deal with as well. It's bloody frustrating and it would be nice to have some real teeth within the planning process to back up what we are saying.
To respond to some of the points posted so far: Perhaps some sort of National Curatorial service should be looking after the Country's heritage, but that's not what the current job description is - curators only work within planning and have little real influence outside that area. If an independent, decent, national heritage protection body is what you want you should join RESCUE (only ?15 quid a year) 'cos that's precisely what they are arguing for. I always support good field practice in archaeology but often get hamstrung by those outside (and sadly sometimes within) the profession. I'd love to spend much more extra time on site talking to diggers too, but as Mr. BAJR Hosty rightly points out, we've got loads to do and fingers in many pies. If this is at the expense of (for example) consultation work, giving an adequate response to one of the new Local Development Framework planning documents, or chasing up a dodgy developer, somewhere down the line this might mean losing a site. To be honest, I do most of my talking to site staff in the pub, and I don't get enough chances to do that as much as I'd like either.
To respond to some of the points posted so far: Perhaps some sort of National Curatorial service should be looking after the Country's heritage, but that's not what the current job description is - curators only work within planning and have little real influence outside that area. If an independent, decent, national heritage protection body is what you want you should join RESCUE (only ?15 quid a year) 'cos that's precisely what they are arguing for. I always support good field practice in archaeology but often get hamstrung by those outside (and sadly sometimes within) the profession. I'd love to spend much more extra time on site talking to diggers too, but as Mr. BAJR Hosty rightly points out, we've got loads to do and fingers in many pies. If this is at the expense of (for example) consultation work, giving an adequate response to one of the new Local Development Framework planning documents, or chasing up a dodgy developer, somewhere down the line this might mean losing a site. To be honest, I do most of my talking to site staff in the pub, and I don't get enough chances to do that as much as I'd like either.