15th January 2008, 03:13 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by garybrun
I understand how archaeologists feel when they donât get the funding they require or when a big developer can muscle through various projects. I understand how a landowner feels and wants to protect his legally owned property from archaeologists that could prevent him continuing his farm practise and make a living as he wishes without having to pay for an archaeological dig that can wipe out his next 5 or 10 years profit margins.
Hi All
Gumbo, fair enough chap, my point was kind of general and from a "black and white" sort of ethical stance and I too certainly don't want to argue as these are always complex issues!
Gary
The thing is its not the archaeologists that decide on planning policy its elected officials, Local Councillors and MPs. I honestly think that there is so much misunderstanding about archaeology that it is very difficult to discuss issues. If a farmer puts in an Agricultural Determination "planning" application to build something that is needed on his/her farm he/she will not have to fund an archaeological excavation (unless they are in a National Park or other specialised area where planning rights are restricted) because of the "special" planning rules for farmers. If a developer (or individual) wants to build on an archaeological site they will have to fund work because of a 1990 Planning guidance note (issued by a Conservative Govt) based on the "polluter pays" principle. So generally farmers already get an easier pass than "normal" people. So I very much doubt that a MD declaring their finds means that a farmer would have to pay 20,000 pounds, unless of course they are developing the land and are going to make a profit from it and as a planning condition cannot make a development unviable the profits are very likely to be at least 10 times that cost anyway. On the other side of the coin (bad pun intended) farmers get paid to preserve arch sites on their land and MDs get fee access to land until such a time as it is taken into stewardship so that the farmer can get paid for it. MDs get public funding through the PAS to help with ID etc. Meanwhile archaeologist (about 90%) of them only get funding through private means such as developers etc.
It seems to me that if farmers and MDs are unhappy about this public funding then we should start thinking about changing the rules so that we don't pay farmers subsides for heritage and we put them back into the "normal" planning process, we could also get rid of PAS and use all the money saved from ELS, HLS and PAS to start public funding of county archaeology units. No? not a good idea? contentious perhaps? But If people don't want money for nothing then I say take it off them}
Steven