19th February 2014, 03:12 PM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:My personal opinion is that rather than integrate archaeology into the planning process we should as a profession be campaigning to remove it. The only way to manage our archaeological heritage should be through changes to the law that would result in automatic protect for our buried and built heritage unless permission is granted for its disturbance, recording and in the extreme, its destruction. Such legislation exists in other EU countries and in essence is the policy promoted by the Valetta convention. It would by consequence make unauthorised metal detecting a crime. All current HER staff would be re-employed by a body such as Historic England to monitor and recommend as implementation of the new heritage law. Cost to the tax payers. Nothing. Benefit to the archaeological resource: priceless! I don't think they need a 100% payrise. Maybe 100% job security would be enough...
Not sure this would have a beneficial effect at all. Its a sad fact of the world that only Laws that are 'of interest' or politically expedient are given the right amount of funding/man(person!)power and even interest.
I recently found out from an ecologist that even though they, in a similar situation, theoretically have the law to back them up its only the planning process that protects ecology.
The police do not pursue people who kill newts, even though its against the law.
Remove the need to mitigate damage to archaeological remains from the planning process will result in total loss of archaeological remains.....even if it is made against the law.
The only way forward is to strengthen the need to mitigate, possibly by backing by a law (as in ecology), strengthen the county archaeologists and HER, give EH more funding...