20th April 2006, 02:15 PM
KW wrote
I have no close ties with the Northants Unit, but do feel that if they go (and maybe, as is rumoured, other local authority units based not a million miles away) it will be a sad day for all UK archaeologists, both professional and non-professional.
This is a reasonable comment and I might agree with it, but it is not the unit that is under threat - as the comments produced in this thread make clear, Northamptonshire Archaeology is not linked to these cuts and will continue to operate as normal.
The key losses from an archaeology perspective will be that of development control and the SMR. The latter is to be taken on by the County Record Office - whether this works remains to be seen - but the former will be cut altogether. This means that the districts (the local planning authorities) will have no-one to turn to for advice on archaeology and development control.
I am already aware of one current excavation that has just been 'monitored' by a district council Conservation Officer who freely admitted that they had never been to an excavation before but were looking forward to seeing some pottery !
This puts us all back into the debate that we often have on here regarding standards, and how it is curators that are in the most obvious position to enforce and uphold them, and to report bad practice. How is this ever going to happen if the curators are not actually archaeologists themselves ?
We all need to become involved in this issue now - if it can happen in one county then it can happen in others as well. EH, IFA, CBA etc need to act urgently and ask the districts here how they are going to able to ensure that applications are in line with PPG16. Some developers will see this as a green light to submit information that merely states that the proposal is in line with PPG16 and hope that they will not be pulled up.
This is not an issue regarding whether or not there is a place for county-based units - it is a fundamental issue regarding who assesses the requirements and methodologies for mitigation.
I have stated previously on this site that what we need to improve the current system is more and better-paid curators (i.e. several per county, earning at least twice their current rate in order to attract experienced people). And before anyone asks, no I am not, or have ever been, or desire to be, a curator. I have worked with many, good, bad and indifferent, but see their role as absolutely central to the system and feel that this is where we should be concentrating our efforts.
Beamo
I have no close ties with the Northants Unit, but do feel that if they go (and maybe, as is rumoured, other local authority units based not a million miles away) it will be a sad day for all UK archaeologists, both professional and non-professional.
This is a reasonable comment and I might agree with it, but it is not the unit that is under threat - as the comments produced in this thread make clear, Northamptonshire Archaeology is not linked to these cuts and will continue to operate as normal.
The key losses from an archaeology perspective will be that of development control and the SMR. The latter is to be taken on by the County Record Office - whether this works remains to be seen - but the former will be cut altogether. This means that the districts (the local planning authorities) will have no-one to turn to for advice on archaeology and development control.
I am already aware of one current excavation that has just been 'monitored' by a district council Conservation Officer who freely admitted that they had never been to an excavation before but were looking forward to seeing some pottery !
This puts us all back into the debate that we often have on here regarding standards, and how it is curators that are in the most obvious position to enforce and uphold them, and to report bad practice. How is this ever going to happen if the curators are not actually archaeologists themselves ?
We all need to become involved in this issue now - if it can happen in one county then it can happen in others as well. EH, IFA, CBA etc need to act urgently and ask the districts here how they are going to able to ensure that applications are in line with PPG16. Some developers will see this as a green light to submit information that merely states that the proposal is in line with PPG16 and hope that they will not be pulled up.
This is not an issue regarding whether or not there is a place for county-based units - it is a fundamental issue regarding who assesses the requirements and methodologies for mitigation.
I have stated previously on this site that what we need to improve the current system is more and better-paid curators (i.e. several per county, earning at least twice their current rate in order to attract experienced people). And before anyone asks, no I am not, or have ever been, or desire to be, a curator. I have worked with many, good, bad and indifferent, but see their role as absolutely central to the system and feel that this is where we should be concentrating our efforts.
Beamo