13th December 2005, 11:26 AM
Scheduling in this case would be like trying to cut your lawn with a chisel 
. It's a good tool, but wasn't designed for this type of use.
To schedule the landscape you would have to individually identify each site, it's area and the remains likely to be present (although there is flexibility for this last one with prehistoric features). You would then have to schedule each individual site/monument which would be unfeasible as every feature is not nationally important in it's own right.
You would then have hundreds of poor quality scheduled sites scattered over an enormous area. It would be all too easy for Tarmac (or whoever wanted to) to apply for scheduled monument consent to destroy them as each scheduling would have to be assessed independently, and they won't stand up on their own. Alternatively Tarmac (or whoever) would legally challenge the schedules, and would win, which would severely damage the scheduling legislation and provide precedent for further legal challenges.
You have to remember that there is no archaeological equivalent of conservation areas, which, if not designed for buildings, would be perfectly suited for the site. Well okay maybe the old AAI scheme may have applied, but it is horribly outdated and not really relevant anymore. Hmm maybe I should suggest some sort of archaeological conservation area to be thought about for the White Paper.
I'm not saying that I think the bulldozers should march in now, I'm just being realistic.
. It's a good tool, but wasn't designed for this type of use.To schedule the landscape you would have to individually identify each site, it's area and the remains likely to be present (although there is flexibility for this last one with prehistoric features). You would then have to schedule each individual site/monument which would be unfeasible as every feature is not nationally important in it's own right.
You would then have hundreds of poor quality scheduled sites scattered over an enormous area. It would be all too easy for Tarmac (or whoever wanted to) to apply for scheduled monument consent to destroy them as each scheduling would have to be assessed independently, and they won't stand up on their own. Alternatively Tarmac (or whoever) would legally challenge the schedules, and would win, which would severely damage the scheduling legislation and provide precedent for further legal challenges.
You have to remember that there is no archaeological equivalent of conservation areas, which, if not designed for buildings, would be perfectly suited for the site. Well okay maybe the old AAI scheme may have applied, but it is horribly outdated and not really relevant anymore. Hmm maybe I should suggest some sort of archaeological conservation area to be thought about for the White Paper.
I'm not saying that I think the bulldozers should march in now, I'm just being realistic.