23rd September 2013, 11:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 23rd September 2013, 11:22 AM by barkingdigger.)
kevin wooldridge Wrote:Surely any case where there is 'preservation in situ' should be accompanied by statutory protection for the remains 'preserved', and ongoing monitoring (for which by the way both the developer and end-users of the development should bear the cost)...
Indeed it should! Once again, a reasonable concept is scuppered by poor practical application. And it begs the question of how sites under a shiny new building (whether rafted or piled) can be accessed for truly adequate inspection? In an ideal world the Local Authority, EH, HS, CADW etc need a lot more Inspectors and FMWs to provide an adequate level of monitoring, and on commercial sites this should incur a development cost. Sadly, I can't see it happening anytime soon.
As for Scheduled sites in the landscape (like John's barrow examples) we can only depend on the statutory bodies to keep an eye on them - see staffing point above. Preservation depends on stable conditions, so any site being actively eroded or looted is already failing the assessment of "preservation" and needs some form of intervention. However, it doesn't mean we should declare open season on all our protected sites!
[Edit: As I recall, EH pays the same 45p/mile for use of personal cars as everybody else - it's determined by HMRC rules! (Sorry, Unit...) Of course, they could claim "actuals" for public transport, or use an EH vehicle with no money involved. I expect that any self-employed bod would be costing these self-same rates into their own quotes, so there's no "advantage" for the "pension grabbers"!]