7th November 2005, 10:28 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
1man1desk-agreed.
I just find it mind-boggling that 16 was introduced simply as guidence.Equally hideous is the fact that it placed no new obligations on local authorities.In the final paragraph, "compromise" is the key term.How naive could one get? I do agree though, with most of you who say 16 is a huge improvement from the bad old days-I particularly capitulate in the face of comments from Achingknees.What I will say though is that the overall ethic behind 16 is morally wrong and, in practise, is nothing short of a limp cop-out on the part of central Government and speaking as a member of the public-a national shame.
It is sort of legislation now, on the basis that it has been used for so long that precedent has been established. The downside of this however is , as you said, the wording and also that it then becomes difficult to change how it is used. The government, previous and present, don't like archaeology because it's so indefinable; you never know what you have until you excavate it. Politicians seem to hate anything that can't be precisely audited or assessed (hence why, in my opinion, listed building and PPG15 are far more coherent and airtight than SM and PPG16). I don't agree that the term guidance effects its use anymore, but the wording does and could do with a facelift.