Modernising Scheduled Monument Consent

[Unitof1]

The document says that it?s a cba study not eh as well. It calls it a study but there not much data with in it. It says that it was carried out after consultation with eh and spab and they sent a copy to jcnas.

In what way did this study open smc up to public scrutiny? eh sent cda its list of applications which cba had a look at presumably pretending to be the public. Somewhere in the report it then says that it?s just like pre application in TCPA isn?t it:

[SIZE=3]There is a substantial level of pre-application discussion in SMC cases (50% or higher), and significantly more than is usual for LBC applications. This means that the proposed works and supporting documentation for the application have usually already been agreed with EH, and perhaps specified if there is an archaeological component, prior to submission. Comments by CBA or another national amenity society after submission could mean that EH then has to revisit discussions and perhaps modify or condition an application. This would have implications for the timescale of decisions and applicants would have to be aware that there might be subsequent changes in requirements.
[/SIZE]

also neatly dropping any mention of how the public should be involved and introduces us to the shadowy world of national amenity societies and this one page world wide web page

http://www.jcnas.org.uk/

who the cba are members of.

And the chairman is http://www.thebestinheritage.com/print.aspx?id=783&OriginalUrl=/about-us/john-sell-biography/

And that?s an interesting eu

http://www.thebestinheritage.com/home/ (that hosty might like to link to)

Anyway does this part of the cba press release really get your attention

[SIZE=3]One particular aspect that the CBA is keen to explore further is the degree to which greater public benefit can be identified and encouraged as a specific element in applications, so that there are more opportunities for involvement in archaeological evaluation or recording and presentation on site of conservation work in progress.
[/SIZE]

I found no mention in the wonderful report of any attempt at any archaeological evaluation or recording. So why mention it? cdb pretending to be an archaeologist again.

I cant work out from the report if eh has to change its ways or not. Its like they are pre-empting PSS5 happening to them before it happens to the curators in TCPA