Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
12th March 2007, 02:33 PM
One of the big gaps in current heritage protection law is in relation to palaeoenvironmental remains. I don't think they can qualify for any of the existing heritage designations, and they are not mentioned in PPG16.
The only guidance I know that does mention them is the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, which governs the Cultural Heritage component of Environmental Impact Assessment for highway projects).
I can't find any reference to them in the Heritage White Paper either, so I can only hope that they would get a mention in the new guidance that is to replace PPG16.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
12th March 2007, 07:00 PM
Good info in your post Mr Hosty-many thanks. Nowhere, is even the slightest suggestion that the complete free-for all commercial environment (no policing of standards) that we currently operate in will be confronted.If anything, the issue is ignored. Seems to be the case that whilst we welcome grand words....optional standards will remain.Brilliant.:face-huh:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
12th March 2007, 11:38 PM
I think you have a good point troll...the main gap that I saw amongst the grand aspirations was a lack of detail or commitment to proper funding to implement all of this.
Obviously if there is increased funding and a more consistent set of fieldwork standards and planning procedures relating to heritage and archaeology to apply which are more transparent to all involved, then curators will have an easier time enforcing them as they will have more time to do it, and an easier time justifying it to developers
and the council who will (according to the document) be obliged to consider it more seriously. This would in turn prevent the few pulling down prices by counting on doing very little with no fear of consequences; in which case this is great!
But if there is no extra money then I don't see how councils will be compelled to make meaningful changes the status quo...
. We'll have to wait and see I suppose....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
13th March 2007, 02:25 PM
Troll might be correct in that there appears to be no real mention of standards etc, although we might anticipate that such mention would be in the replacement PPG as and when one is produced in response to new legislation. However it would have been nice to see some sort of commitment to upholding statndards in the White Paper.
hb - there is some discussion of the extra costs in the Regulatory Impact Assessment that accompanies the White Paper, but no real way of checking the basis for the the figures that are put forward in the RIA, eg. £400K from 2010/11 (England only) for the devolution of responsibility for SMC from DCMS/EH to LPAs. What is slightly more worrying here is the statement that the costs of the negotiation and monitoring of the new Heritage Partnership Agreements (HPAs) would not be considered a new burden.
Perhaps I am just a little bit touchy about this issue, but has anyone else looked at the make-up of the Steering Committee for the Heritage Protection Review. It is chaired by someone from Equity Land Ltd (i.e property investors) and includes a few other people from similar companies and organisations (Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd, Rockspring Property Investment Managers Ltd, Country Land and Business Association) as well as the Church of England and assorted civil servants (DCMS, DCLG, EH). I know that the HPR needed to be aware of the potential concerns of developers and property managers but to me it seems as if the Review was actually being driven by this sector rather than by the 'custodians' of the heritage.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
13th March 2007, 10:51 PM
I don`t feel that you are being touchy at all Beamo-what you describe sounds about right.The steering committee or, at least, the make-up of said body, belies the same old tired contrived methodology of making things look and sound good whilst passing the "steering" wheel to corporate shareholders and their interests.What I don`t understand and-will not accept, is that the IFA have not pushed the issue of optional standards one inch forwards in all the years of their existence.The White paper process should have been the optimal environment in which to broach this issue and yet, as anyone can see through even the briefest of readings of the document, no-one really gives a monkies.Much of our transport system (rail) has been sold off piecemeal to private companies who have bled the tax-payer dry for years since.Even when people die using this transport system (no doubt as the result of the cheapest crud wins the contract mentality) no-one can be held responsible despite the reasonably recent "corporate manslaughter" legislation. What chance do we have? Heres an open question for anyone in the IFA that would care to comment-why don`t the IFA see professional standards as an important cornerstone to what we do and, an obvious catalyst to our industries overdue evolution to a modern, responsible profession?:face-huh:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
14th March 2007, 11:53 AM
Er... Troll, they do. That's why they have been and remain at the forefront of developing standards.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
14th March 2007, 01:10 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by beamo
.. has anyone else looked at the make-up of the Steering Committee for the Heritage Protection Review. It is chaired by someone from Equity Land Ltd (i.e property investors) and includes a few other people from similar companies and organisations (Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd, Rockspring Property Investment Managers Ltd, Country Land and Business Association) ....
At first sight, I agree it is a little worrying to see. However, Geoffrey Wilson (the chair of the committee/Equity Land) evidently has many fingers in many pies: from 2000-3 he was a governer of the Museum of London, and before that was a commissioner with English Heritage.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page2770.asp. Whether this makes it any better....[?]
Haven't checked any of the others yet for their 'qualifications' for the membership of this group :face-huh:
I maiali sono alimentati e aspettano per volare
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
14th March 2007, 02:03 PM
Posted by Troll:
Quote:quote:What I don`t understand and-will not accept, is that the IFA have not pushed the issue of optional standards one inch forwards in all the years of their existence.The White paper process should have been the optimal environment in which to broach this issue and yet, as anyone can see through even the briefest of readings of the document, no-one really gives a monkies ... why don`t the IFA see professional standards as an important cornerstone to what we do and, an obvious catalyst to our industries overdue evolution to a modern, responsible profession?
Two points in response to that:
1 - The IFA have created the only standards we have, they promote them, and they insist that their members and RAOs comply with them. They also continue to develop new ones.
2 - The IFA are not the authors of the White Paper, so don't blame them for its content.
Finally, what has rail privatisation got to do with the topic in hand?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
14th March 2007, 02:46 PM
This paper is supposed to be outlining the way forwards for the designation and protection of Historic sites. It's not going to mention standards for digging them up or monitoring commercial archaeological work because it's not the appropriate place to do so. That would be contradictory and confusing. Also, such a discussion in this context might establish into the system a principle of "acceptable destruction if offset by recording or monitoring" for historic sites and buildings that are currently well protected from such threats. This in effect would water the current Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments protection legislation down to nearer the PPG16 level where archaeological destruction is accepted in development situations, and would be a handy principle for developers to exploit if they fancied using the top of Canterbury Cathedral for a mobile phone mast or converting Fountains Abbey into a nice block of flats.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
14th March 2007, 02:49 PM
"1 - The IFA have created the only standards we have, they promote them, and they insist that their members and RAOs comply with them. They also continue to develop new ones."
But they still haven't recognised or adopted the single context system and other basic scientific methods or techniques many which existed prior to the formation of the IFA.
"Freedom of ideas is one thing, freedom of the purse is quite another". Edward Harris
