29th March 2016, 01:29 PM
Wonder no more Prentice I have grasped last straw and the back broke.
Hosty do any of the briefs in Scotland make it clear that the artefacts belong to the Crown?
Although there is the first use of the word OR in the sentence the MADE CLEAR AT INCEPTION OF THE PROJECT might suggest that if the applicant approaches the LPA first that it would be helpful that the LPA should make ownership clear if only for their own understanding of NPPF. If anything the final statement (IN THE BRIEF, WSI OR PROJECT DESIGN) does not seem to allow an exception in both the brief and the project design or WSI. I think that the OR in this segment confuses that statement suggesting that there is a choice rather than that project designs and WSI are the same thing. There must be a LPA somewhere in England and Wales that mentions ownership in their briefs or are they relying on referencing ifa Standards and guidance's that might contain the statement? I suggest that that's only clear if WSI and project designs are the same thing.
In my WSIs I have always used the term "It will be asked of the applicant to donate the artefacts with the archive". I think that makes it clear that artifacts belong to the applicant.
What I think is most problematic with this sentence is the use of the word donate. I think it is what the ifa want the applicant to do but I like to use the word because of this sense:
https://www.gov.uk/donating-to-charity/d...-or-shares
The word donate is used in the ifa standards and guidance's
3.6.7 Except in Scotland, in the event that the landowner is unwilling, for whatever reason,
to donate the finds to the appropriate recipient museum, the archaeologist
undertaking the fieldwork must endeavour to ensure all artefacts are recorded, safely
packaged and conserved where appropriate before transfer to the owner, and that
their location and ownership are stated in the site archive and public record. It should
be noted that the owner’s explicit (written) permission is required before entering such
personal information in the public record (see inter alia the Data Protection Act 1984).
"inter alia" it is obviously possible that the owner does not have to give any permission and that there should not be a concept of transfer
Hosty do any of the briefs in Scotland make it clear that the artefacts belong to the Crown?
Although there is the first use of the word OR in the sentence the MADE CLEAR AT INCEPTION OF THE PROJECT might suggest that if the applicant approaches the LPA first that it would be helpful that the LPA should make ownership clear if only for their own understanding of NPPF. If anything the final statement (IN THE BRIEF, WSI OR PROJECT DESIGN) does not seem to allow an exception in both the brief and the project design or WSI. I think that the OR in this segment confuses that statement suggesting that there is a choice rather than that project designs and WSI are the same thing. There must be a LPA somewhere in England and Wales that mentions ownership in their briefs or are they relying on referencing ifa Standards and guidance's that might contain the statement? I suggest that that's only clear if WSI and project designs are the same thing.
In my WSIs I have always used the term "It will be asked of the applicant to donate the artefacts with the archive". I think that makes it clear that artifacts belong to the applicant.
What I think is most problematic with this sentence is the use of the word donate. I think it is what the ifa want the applicant to do but I like to use the word because of this sense:
https://www.gov.uk/donating-to-charity/d...-or-shares
The word donate is used in the ifa standards and guidance's
3.6.7 Except in Scotland, in the event that the landowner is unwilling, for whatever reason,
to donate the finds to the appropriate recipient museum, the archaeologist
undertaking the fieldwork must endeavour to ensure all artefacts are recorded, safely
packaged and conserved where appropriate before transfer to the owner, and that
their location and ownership are stated in the site archive and public record. It should
be noted that the owner’s explicit (written) permission is required before entering such
personal information in the public record (see inter alia the Data Protection Act 1984).
"inter alia" it is obviously possible that the owner does not have to give any permission and that there should not be a concept of transfer
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist