5th June 2014, 01:05 PM
Marc
Try this link for inquiry procedures:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads...ll_ins.pdf
You said 'When ever I have seen archaeology discussed at a public enquiry there has been a archaeologist for the scheme and one against.'
What you are supposed to be seeing is two archaeologists giving expert opinions (which may well differ) in order to inform the inspector. In the adversarial court of the public inquiry, each team will use whatever tactics they can get away with to undermine the credibility and the expertise of the archaeological expert witness and make him/her out to be 'less' of an expert than their preferred expert witness. Many of the heritage issues under discussion at Inquiries are fairly subjective (e.g. how much of an impact will a proposed development have on the setting of a Grade II listed building, how will this affect the significance of the building etc) and therefore it all comes down to opinion rather than fact. Of course, the expert witness may well convince that Inspector that his/her opinion is the more credible, only for Old Gherkinhead to over-rule the Inspector's decision on the basis of nothing in particular.
Beamo
Try this link for inquiry procedures:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads...ll_ins.pdf
You said 'When ever I have seen archaeology discussed at a public enquiry there has been a archaeologist for the scheme and one against.'
What you are supposed to be seeing is two archaeologists giving expert opinions (which may well differ) in order to inform the inspector. In the adversarial court of the public inquiry, each team will use whatever tactics they can get away with to undermine the credibility and the expertise of the archaeological expert witness and make him/her out to be 'less' of an expert than their preferred expert witness. Many of the heritage issues under discussion at Inquiries are fairly subjective (e.g. how much of an impact will a proposed development have on the setting of a Grade II listed building, how will this affect the significance of the building etc) and therefore it all comes down to opinion rather than fact. Of course, the expert witness may well convince that Inspector that his/her opinion is the more credible, only for Old Gherkinhead to over-rule the Inspector's decision on the basis of nothing in particular.
Beamo