6th July 2010, 03:43 PM
I am not sure that to provide information is clearly different to curation
(it appears)
he6.1, he6.2 and he6.3 all appear to put the description of the ?significance of the heritage assets? on the applicant and application which to my mind belongs to the landowner. The owners of the archaeology are in effect providing the curation. If they were to ask an archaeologist (me) for an assessment it would still be their curation in the eyes of the planning authority. Obviously the planning authority do not have to agree with the applicants view of curation
In terms of the current (residual?) system we see very little of the description of the archaeology with the application. Either the mitigation such as evaluation/excavation has been undertaken in an informal pre-decision process often with only verbal and generalised policy statements for their requirement or there is a post determination condition often asking for a scheme of work as yet still to be agreed and it could be said the requirement for the scheme is still un-negotiated and may still require a full process of evaluation.
With almost all of my clients I get the why did they get the condition when they can easily cite similar developments next door which did not attract archaeological attention. It seems to me that if at the outset the applicant provided the intended curation we would then be able to follow what happens site by site and by documented public precedent be better able to advise our clients.
What we have at the moment in practise is un regulated curation
(it appears)
he6.1, he6.2 and he6.3 all appear to put the description of the ?significance of the heritage assets? on the applicant and application which to my mind belongs to the landowner. The owners of the archaeology are in effect providing the curation. If they were to ask an archaeologist (me) for an assessment it would still be their curation in the eyes of the planning authority. Obviously the planning authority do not have to agree with the applicants view of curation
In terms of the current (residual?) system we see very little of the description of the archaeology with the application. Either the mitigation such as evaluation/excavation has been undertaken in an informal pre-decision process often with only verbal and generalised policy statements for their requirement or there is a post determination condition often asking for a scheme of work as yet still to be agreed and it could be said the requirement for the scheme is still un-negotiated and may still require a full process of evaluation.
With almost all of my clients I get the why did they get the condition when they can easily cite similar developments next door which did not attract archaeological attention. It seems to me that if at the outset the applicant provided the intended curation we would then be able to follow what happens site by site and by documented public precedent be better able to advise our clients.
What we have at the moment in practise is un regulated curation