2nd February 2006, 02:39 PM
Sparky wrote:
'I would have thought that planning permission would have stipulated the usual about depositing the archive at a named location. Isn't the developer therefore contradicting the planning consent?'
This can be quite a tricky issue - the written archive (including graphics etc) remains the property of the contractor and the WSI will usually commit the contractor to placing it in an recognised depository (assuming that there is one available to accept it). The artefacts/ecofacts (with the exception of human remains/items covered by the Treasure Act) remain the property of the landowner, and the WSI usually commits the contractor to make every effort to persuade the landowner to sign over legal title to the depository so that these can go with the rest of the archive.
Some Briefs issued by curators, and the corresponding WSIs, seek to commit the landowner to certain conditions if they wish to keep some or all of the artefacts, such as proper conservation and storage in a suitable environment, public access etc. I have never been too sure of the legal aspects of this.
If the landowner takes back the finds from the contractor (bearing in mind that this might be several years after the fieldwork for a major excavation), removes all the finds from the bags, scrapes the context number etc off each sherd, puts all the finds in a few old boxes and dumps the lot in a landfill site, what comeback can there be from the planning authority or any other authority ?
Sorry Mr Landowner your actions are not in line with what was agreed in the WSI 10 years ago to meet planning condition no. 26, and this condition is now deemed to have not been adequately discharged. We would therefore request that you demolish the 100 houses that were built on this site - Oh, you've sold them all into the private sector and that would mean taking enforcement against 100 home-owning families who consider that they purchased their houses legally and with all conditions discharged. I think not.
Have any curators ever come across this situation, or will this fall into the same category as 'what to do with developers who have failed to adeqately fund publication but against whom enforcement action is extemely unlikely' ?
This is a matter of legal concern - either we go down the Scottish route of state ownership of all artefacts (Note - this is not an attempt to start a debate on the matter with detectorists), or we give curators (through planning or otherwise) far greater powers to keep archives intact and available.
Beamo
'I would have thought that planning permission would have stipulated the usual about depositing the archive at a named location. Isn't the developer therefore contradicting the planning consent?'
This can be quite a tricky issue - the written archive (including graphics etc) remains the property of the contractor and the WSI will usually commit the contractor to placing it in an recognised depository (assuming that there is one available to accept it). The artefacts/ecofacts (with the exception of human remains/items covered by the Treasure Act) remain the property of the landowner, and the WSI usually commits the contractor to make every effort to persuade the landowner to sign over legal title to the depository so that these can go with the rest of the archive.
Some Briefs issued by curators, and the corresponding WSIs, seek to commit the landowner to certain conditions if they wish to keep some or all of the artefacts, such as proper conservation and storage in a suitable environment, public access etc. I have never been too sure of the legal aspects of this.
If the landowner takes back the finds from the contractor (bearing in mind that this might be several years after the fieldwork for a major excavation), removes all the finds from the bags, scrapes the context number etc off each sherd, puts all the finds in a few old boxes and dumps the lot in a landfill site, what comeback can there be from the planning authority or any other authority ?
Sorry Mr Landowner your actions are not in line with what was agreed in the WSI 10 years ago to meet planning condition no. 26, and this condition is now deemed to have not been adequately discharged. We would therefore request that you demolish the 100 houses that were built on this site - Oh, you've sold them all into the private sector and that would mean taking enforcement against 100 home-owning families who consider that they purchased their houses legally and with all conditions discharged. I think not.
Have any curators ever come across this situation, or will this fall into the same category as 'what to do with developers who have failed to adeqately fund publication but against whom enforcement action is extemely unlikely' ?
This is a matter of legal concern - either we go down the Scottish route of state ownership of all artefacts (Note - this is not an attempt to start a debate on the matter with detectorists), or we give curators (through planning or otherwise) far greater powers to keep archives intact and available.
Beamo