6th July 2010, 03:04 PM
I am sorry for any confusion, I took issue with the suggestion that planning applicants should 'self curate'. I am not suggesting that all curators should be public sector employees, I have met some good ones who are not, but I do fundermentally believe that curators should serve the 'public interest' and not the private financial needs of developers. There is of course an important role for proffessional archaeologists to play in advising and preparing information for developers, but that service is provided by consultants and contractors.
I am interested in hearing which policies in PPS5 Unit of One is referring to when he states that it 'appears to leave the curation to the landowner', I have just skimmed through my copy and found lots of references to 'local planning authorities should take into account' and 'local planning authorities should not permit' which I take to be a reference to the role of curators (whether publically employed or not). Both PPS5 and as Unit of One rightly comments PPG16, place the responsiblity on applicants to 'provide information' to enable them to make their decision, but this is clearly different from curation.
I am interested in hearing which policies in PPS5 Unit of One is referring to when he states that it 'appears to leave the curation to the landowner', I have just skimmed through my copy and found lots of references to 'local planning authorities should take into account' and 'local planning authorities should not permit' which I take to be a reference to the role of curators (whether publically employed or not). Both PPS5 and as Unit of One rightly comments PPG16, place the responsiblity on applicants to 'provide information' to enable them to make their decision, but this is clearly different from curation.