5th November 2009, 01:38 PM
English Heritage response here: http://www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/eh_res...1257253615
As regards Para 64 - In what way is this unrealistic Peter et al? I must say that this policy actually falls short of best practice in some parts of the country as reflected in local guidelines (e.g. Greater London). While each site is different and levels of public involvement / publicity and the timing of these aspects may vary - just to say that this is 'impractical' will not wash. I fully expect to see this included in the final version - hopefully in a stronger form. And also look forward to helping implement it as a curator. A major step forward.
As regards Para 64 - In what way is this unrealistic Peter et al? I must say that this policy actually falls short of best practice in some parts of the country as reflected in local guidelines (e.g. Greater London). While each site is different and levels of public involvement / publicity and the timing of these aspects may vary - just to say that this is 'impractical' will not wash. I fully expect to see this included in the final version - hopefully in a stronger form. And also look forward to helping implement it as a curator. A major step forward.
[INDENT]Shiny assed county mounty, office lurker, coffee junkie and facebook scanner[/INDENT]