Petition II - Stronger Curating !

[BAJR Host]

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/impact/

The petition aims are two-fold:

1) A recent announcement by the Government to increase the number of homes built by 2016 to 240,000 per year will significantly impact upon archaeologically sensitive areas in Britain and proposed ‘fast-track’ planning will considerably impair the ability of regional archaeological curators (Planning Control Archaeologists and County/City Archaeologists) to formulate adequate responses to the threats the archaeology will face. Nor is it likely that under the proposed new legislation those curators will be given adequate power to ensure that developers fully address the archaeological implication of their actions. Currently, despite PPG16 and especially with reference to new housing archaeological mitigation is seemingly lacking or of low quality due to pressures from planners and government.

2) That archaeological curatorship in all counties and authorities is of equal quality of the best of those areas. Currently, there can be wide disparities of the quality of curators from one county or authority to the next, which is to the detriment of the quality of archaeological research carried out under the auspices of PPG16.

:face-huh: well I'll back that... you see I believe in everything being linked... to raise pay, we have to have better standards and curating .. to do that we need to be ready for the massive devlopment, where we can and should be part of the process as professionals, rather than the undervalued hangers-on..

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[BAJR Host]

56 sigs.... come on folks... this one is important... very important! spread the word

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[ecmgardner]

...Just to bring this one back up to the top - only 80 sigs.

[hurting-back]

I can't understand why everyone signed something asking the government to intervene in something it would never get involved in (what companies pay archaeologists) but are now failing to sign a petition asking the government to act on curatorial powers and their consistent application, which does have an effect on wages and which the government could do something about by making provisions when it reforms the planning system. Pass this one around to everyone you know! Those who do nothing have no one but themselves to blame.

"don't panic!"

[BAJR Host]

Have to agree that this is very worrying...

email the link to friends... we need stronger curation to ensure standards!



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[hurting-back]

Still only 87 signatures!!!!!!!! I am very disappointed!!!!!!!!! :face-confused:

"don't panic!"

[vulpes]

quote:Currently, despite PPG16 and especially with reference to new housing archaeological mitigation is seemingly lacking or of low quality due to pressures from planners and government.

Speaking as a curator in one of the key growth areas of the south east I can't agree that this is the situation - certainly not in my experience anyway. Pressure to reduce quality usually comes from developers or consultants.

Point 2 is not especially clear either - it seems to be saying that some curators are of poor quality - again although it may be true?! Why should I be queuing up to slag off my colleagues to the PM? Instead of lobbying for 'stronger' curators - whatever that means. We should be lobbying for more curators to meet increased development workload.

As for 'powers', yes these are limited and will probably stay so - Curators are fundamentally specialist advisors - We neither make planning decisions or enforce them. The power lies with the politicians or is delegated to planning officers.

A key area for improvement would not be an increase in our powers but a tightening up of PPG16 in a replacement PPS - particularly in relation to publication and dissemination of fieldwork.

Would suggest that petition is poorly worded and misses the key points.

[monitor lizard]

Couldn't agree with Vuples more. I took some offence to the wording - I think I'm a pretty good curator, thank you very much, and objected to the suggestion that we're all a bunch of muppets. I know there are some curators who are perhaps less robust than others, but I will not be tarred with the same brush.

I also think you need to be VERY careful about trying to standardise curatorial response. That way lies a lot of tick boxes, and the way to an unskilled workforce. Each county, area and site are different, and part of the skill in the curators role is being able to respond appropriately to specific situations.

The germ of an idea is certainly here, and as hurting-back says, if you're going to talk to government may as well make it something they could conceivably act upon. Especially with the thought that the White Paper could be passed into legislation within the next few years.

But can't agree with the way this is phrased.

ML

[historic building]

This one has annoyed me enough to return while a bit pissed after spending the entire day, after a series of meetings lasting over the last four weeks being a 'strong curator' arguing in line with the UDP policy that known archaeological remains of national importance should be preserved not sacrificed. I have almost got to the stage when the other side is beginning to surrender but occasionally I have to do a bit of other work. Part of this other work is going through the costings for the building of a new school in gruesome detail to prove that the developer is lying when they claim that the cost of the archaeology will prevent the development of a school - ah the academy system is just excellent. I am sure you can believe that there is no pressure from within the council for me to compromise on this and let the developer do what the hell they want no matter what is on site.

I have also just received a DBA from a consultant which has managed to get every UDP designation incorrect, got the policy numbers wrong and misidentified the location of the site. Back to the consultant and I estimate that this will take the usual several drafts to get an accurate document from this bunch. A bit less of this would give me some more time for some 'strong curating'.

This does not mention the fact that I am having to fill in for a conservation officer who this council have yet to advertise for in a sensible place so this will probably last for another 5 months.

Occasionally among everything else I manage a bit of 'strong curating'.

If you want 'strong curating' get PPG 15 and 16 rewritten - we all know this is not going to happen until the heritage white paper has bedded down. Then get every council to rewrite their heritage policies to reflect the new guidance and start to enforce them, redraw their policy maps etc. 10 years at a minimum I guess. The petition reads like a 'here is a list of curators we would like to get rid of'. Fast tracking may not actually be a threat if it means that land is flagged up early on in the designation process so a response can be made.

What might be useful is a wish list for the, hopefully, new heritage policy guidance. Obviously everyone is now very well paid after the success of the last petition so we can move on from that.

[BAJR Host]

After a veery similar day... I can only agree... perhaps what we need is strong curating ... strong PPG 16 (version2) and perhaps more intigration with planning... and bit more pro active 'marketing' to developers.. and an acceptance that contract archaeology is very very different from 'archaeology' ... oh... and an all time fave as well.. where I heard that the problem with curators is that they check up too much... (er correct me if I am wrong... but the clues in the name!)

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu