10th November 2010, 09:59 AM
Quote:there are some things which are having the opposite effect to what government intended
That's an interesting statement Peter, which things would they be?
As regard the checking of the HER in relation to planning proposals etc. How you go about this is not specified in PPS5 and I suspect curatorial perceptions differ widely. I myself, speaking as a curator, would hope that this would mean informal pre-application consultation with the Development Control archaeologist for which there would be no charge for initial advice. That is, I don't see why this should necessarily constitute an additional financial burden on developers, it will generate more work for LG archs and the money will have to come from somewhere. HER search costs are certainly not 'going away' given the current climate in local government, and to be realistic Kevin I expect to see an overall reduction in local government archaeologists of all colours over the next 3 years (and indeed local government employees full stop). This appears to be a more evidence based summation of Liberal and Tory policy.
In general I see PPS5 and it's language as a 'good thing'. It does set some new challenges to the profession, across the board, and has already changed the way I work (and particularly how I justify my decisions). The clauses in HE12 specifically HE12.3 are especially significant and re-establish archaeology as a discipline that should aim to advance knowledge, not just collect stamps. :face-approve: Given noises from the new regime I'm not sure that PPS5 will be with us for much longer, though I hope that the good bits are at least kept in the new, streamlined, localised planning system.
Well, enjoy your debate. Thought I'd grab the opportunity to insert 2p before the IfA and curator kicking takes over as per.