Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
3rd February 2006, 05:02 PM
Has anyone ever come across a case where the developer/owner not only wants to keep the 'finds' archive but also the paper/photographic record? Seems to me that if you pay for something you probably have a right of ownership. Nightmare scenario.....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
3rd February 2006, 05:15 PM
Usually the paper archive would be considered to be under the copyright of the organisation which produced it. You would expect that this would be detailed in any contract between the archaeologist and their client. I say this mindfully that I will probably be proved wrong but it is a situation which should not really arise.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
3rd February 2006, 05:18 PM
I suppose thats a no then. I would ask myself but I don't subscribe to Britarch...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
4th February 2006, 10:39 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by historic building
Usually the paper archive would be considered to be under the copyright of the organisation which produced it. You would expect that this would be detailed in any contract between the archaeologist and their client. I say this mindfully that I will probably be proved wrong but it is a situation which should not really arise.
I was thinking of 2 scenarios.
One is where the unit or individual that digs a site isn't necessarily the unit or individual that gets to do the post-ex work. I am guessing that there is no copyright involved otherwise the 'originators' of the archive if aggrieved, could refuse to hand it over to the team employed to do the post-ex.
Two is where a developer having satisfied a planning condition in allowing archaeological access and 'preservation by record' could then hang onto the site paper and finds archive, refusing further 'archaeologist' access, to save theirselves post-ex costs.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
5th February 2006, 10:04 PM
I can think of one so called "trust" who won't let anyone look at their archive!
They also accused a friend of mine of compiling a database as he had made several visits to "their" smr!
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
6th February 2006, 09:23 AM
Quote:quote:
I was thinking of 2 scenarios.
One is where the unit or individual that digs a site isn't necessarily the unit or individual that gets to do the post-ex work. I am guessing that there is no copyright involved otherwise the 'originators' of the archive if aggrieved, could refuse to hand it over to the team employed to do the post-ex.
Two is where a developer having satisfied a planning condition in allowing archaeological access and 'preservation by record' could then hang onto the site paper and finds archive, refusing further 'archaeologist' access, to save theirselves post-ex costs.
The first scenario is a problem between two units which could be sorted out at a professional level I would guess. I know of a few examples where the unit doing the digging weren't the ones who did the post-ex. It's extremely bad practice though. The second scenario should never happen - developers don't "satisfy" planning conditions as soon as the archaeologists finish digging and leave site. I've often refused to recommend discharging a planning condition until the post-ex was either completed, well under way or financially guaranteed by the developer. I also require a commitment given somewhere in the paperwork as to where the archives are eventually going.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
6th February 2006, 11:00 AM
Like Curator Kid I do not recommend a discharge of the condition until I have the completed site report in my hand. For buildings purposes I do not recommend discharge until I have the archive.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
6th February 2006, 11:40 AM
If you didn't receive the archive, site report etc and was forced into not discharging the planning condition, what effect is that going to have on the development?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
6th February 2006, 11:55 AM
my understanding, from talking to planners, that there may well be an issue with selling any property as a solicitor's search will show up undischarged conditions showing that the planning permission has not been complied with. I actually have a situation along these lines on at the moment so I may be able to provide more information in a few weeks.
If i have not seen the archive to check it is alright before any development work starting - which is a condition written into the brief - I have, in many cases, but dependent on which district, been able to stop development work until adequate records have been supplied.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
6th February 2006, 04:33 PM
Hi guys
I think you will find that you are on really dodgy ground trying to place a condition on planning permission that involves the submission of an archive from an intervention as this is considered in law as ultra vires (i.e. beyond the control of) the developer. The condition has to relate directly to the development and cannot force the developer to fund finds etc which do not remain with the developer. The best method is to advise the LPA not to discharge the condition until the submission of a report and ensure the contractor has submitted their archive before this point (and been paid by their client)
Steven
Steven
