Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
After much discussion and speculation, the Heritage White Paper has finally arrived:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_libr...aper07.htm
Now the fun really begins! [xx(]
<i>\"I\'m a time traveller. I point and laugh at archaeologists.\"</i>
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Hmmm.... "public involvement...community engagement....more open....accountable and transparent...a clearer record.....streamline consent procedures...." all sounds very much like a political manifesto to me, lots of well-thought out buzz words to appease before the horrific reality sets in. Barker? wants less public involvement in the planning processes to speed things up for business.Is this little factoid being hidden within the above rhetoric or do they actually mean removing public opinion as a tool to "streamline consent procedures"?
"we will provide a unified legislative framework for heritage protection" Wohooo!!! I thought-finally! however....
"we will underpin new legislation with new policy guidence" Oh.Just great.Which muppet came up with that little gem?
The DCMS claims that our heritage protection system has protected our heritage well for over a century.This claim either can be seen as an indication of just how little central government know/care about the realities or, an indication of their complicit role in the largescale removal of over 148,000 archaeological sites over the past 14 years in an un-regulated commercial free for all. Devolvement of scheduling from central government to English Heritage.....another gem.Fan bloody tastic. After trawling through endless pages of this crap, I just can`t be bothered anymore.This is what we get for standing back and allowing un-elected bodies to make representations on our behalf.Where`s me passport, I`ve had enough:face-confused:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Bye then..
But seriously it's not all bad. Devolving designation powers to EH just removes 'double-handling' by EH and DCMS and won't significantly change things - it will speed up the process though. This had already been done succesfully with Scheduled Monument Consent anyway. The paper also contains the much needed committment to statutory SMR/HERs - another good thing. As for underpinning legislation with policy guidance - so what? Getting guidance out into the world is a lot easier than getting legsialtion through parliament - Note. It will be at least 2010/11 before any of this becomes law, and it may be quite unrecognisable from the white paper by then. The White Paper, however, is a good start in my opinion - Lets hope it don't get forgotten or water down too much. Don't know what took it so long though! Oh: here you go - Page 30 -
Quote:quote:We will improve access to information about the local historic environment by introducing a statutory duty on local authorities to maintain or have access to a Historic Environment Record
Shocking![:p]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
G`day Vulpes
You are right, Its not all bad but, it is nothing really new and, nothing that will introduce tangible change.Tiz just another exercise in saying the right words to the right people and making it look good.Statutory duties are a good thing I agree however, I would have placed statutory duties in more desparately needed stategic positions.Apart from that, we`ve had SMRs storing libraries of "reports" for years anyway-making that a legal requirement is hardly an excuse to get the bubbly out.Statutory duties are a good thing when placed where needed most and, where is the money coming from? In some ways, yep-this document could be seen as a good thing but, I`ll believe it when I see it
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Sorry, disagree completely. Making SMRs a statutory requirement would be a huge step forward.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
But provides no new statutory tools for curators with which to combat the endless farce we see every day.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Statutory SMR's will be a big step forward - if there is some associated funding to deal with the need to provide for specialist officers and address backlogs etc. No commitment is given though. Depending on the interpretation of some of what is in the paper about the operation of a new system, Curators may get some more enforceable powers, but more clarity is needed.:face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Wow - just downloaded my copy - I feel like a kid about to open his Xmas stocking - let's hope for more than just an orange and a shiny but very oow deni=omination coin.
Obviously unable to comment in detail as I haven't read it but can't resist a couple of comments already.
Troll - you are probably right in that it is full of jargon - I wouldn't expect anything else from civil servants. However, it is fairly obvious that if new legislation is brought in (2011 ?) then new guidance will follow - we have enough problems with PPG16 as it is, and we certainly can't expect old guidance to address new legislation.
You are also right in that additional statutory duties would have been useful. I agree that making (access to) HERs a statutory requirement is a very good thing, but of equal or greater importance would be a statutory duty to maintain and enhance the current level of curatorial services - perhaps it is in the White Paper - must dash off to a quiet corner and try to peek inside the wrapping or perhaps cop a quick feel of the contents.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Ooh... What else... Well revoking Class Consents for ploughing on Scheduled sites - in there. Also committments to capacity building at local authority level.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Yeah this has livened up my boring day no end. There is also "It will be an offence to carry out any unauthorised work to a Registered Building or Archaeological Site" followed by: "The defence of ignorance that the area was scheduled in relation to unauthorised works to a Scheduled Ancient Monument will be removed for works to Registered Buildings and Archaeological Sites." Let's have an end to that "I didn't know" whine we're so sick of.:face-approve:
