PPS Consultation

[drpeterwardle]

I may be a minority but generally it is a step in the right direction. Of course it is more about buildings and all the other heritage assets - archaeology is but a part of the historic environment.

Apart from this paragraph;

"64. The process of investigation and recording, such as dismantling a building, or excavating a site, may be of public interest in its own right. Where appropriate and possible, local planning authorities may wish to consider the public benefit of making the investigative works open and interpreted to the public and requiring that as part of the written scheme of investigation. For example, this dissemination could include viewing platforms and interpretation panels as well as seeking coverage in the local newspaper."

which is going to cause a lot of arguments - good idea but impractical.

The paragraph about unexpected discovered is needed and sensible.

However, - how this system will fit in with other major changes in the planning system remains to be seen. I think a bigger concern is the Tory Policy that the planning system can be by-passed altogether in villages to create affordable housing

Peter

[BAJR Host]

Welcome back Peter... where you been!

I may be a minority but generally it is a step in the right direction. Of course it is more about buildings and all the other heritage assets - archaeology is but a part of the historic environment.

That is indeed something I can agree with... but there is too much that is waffle... though I have been told that should in legal terms means 'must' (though personally I can't beleive that!)

"good idea but impractical." Your response to Para 64.. which really sums it up... (I myself had a similar text in my briefs when I was a planning arch) and indeed it was nice but no.

in fact... the draft is just like that good idea but impractical!

[vulpes]

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.

[BRahn]

NB: he said 'good idea but impractical', not 'unrealistic'. Or are those synonymous? Where's my coffee?

For my money, 'Where appropriate and possible...may wish to consider the public benefit' in p.64 is too vague and weakly-worded for it to be implemented in any kind of consistent way. The language provides too many get-out clauses for someone who just can't be bothered insisting on public engagement.

[Windbag]

I can think of lots of projects where a large amount of public engagement during the fieldwork would not be suitable. It would have to be something that could be discussed on a case-by-case basis rather than universally required

[BAJR Host]

This is just one of the 'issues' where you can see that even here we can't come up with a firm.. this would be appropriate and this would not be... and in this case para 64. As it would have to be a case by case.. AND you would not know until it was discovered to be such a site? How do you budget that one in?

Is there need for a system to designate a site as being suitable.. with funds available IF it turns into a site that would benefit from Public Involvement. Vague and fluffy

[RedEarth]

I can think of lots of projects where a large amount of public engagement during the fieldwork would not be suitable. It would have to be something that could be discussed on a case-by-case basis rather than universally required.



I seem to remember making this exact point and pretty much getting shouted down by everyone. It's a great idea but very difficult to sensibly implement. How do you decide what might be of interest to the public, what form does it take etc? It's a great idea but a bit of a minefield.

Why stop there though? There are probably lots of people interested in geology who would like to see boreholes being dug (is that the word?), lots of people with an interest in engineering who would like to watch roads being constructed, lots of little kids who would love to watch big diggers at work! Why just archaeology?

It has the potential to sound a bit like window dressing - make sure that the interested public get to see what's going on, without perhaps addressing more fundamental issues that affect things like the manner in which the work is done (thus ensuring good standards in some properly organised and explict way and so improving conditions for archaeologists). A lowly paid archaeologist on a 1 month contract might feel a little aggrieved to find that the client had been forced to spend a large sum of money on 'outreach' while they are rushing to get finished on time.

[Oxbeast]

While I agree that the standards need to be more fully explained and quantified, I don't think that appropriate outreach needs to be expensive. The paragraph above mentions putting up an information board, and telling the local press.

Its only in the case of having to close the site to run tours, or adapting the H&S requirements to allow more people to access the site that things start to get expensive, and you need to start budgeting for it. Probably any archaeology which has gone through pre-application determenation, evaluation and onto excavation is going to be interesting to the public.

I'd much rather see this added onto the budget as an additional contingency cost, rather than coming from the contractor's margin.

[vulpes]

BRahn - they're not miles away in meaning last time I looked - my mistake. I'd try a dictionary rather than stimulants. It is up to curators to get this stuff into briefs and written schemes and make their approval of such schemes dependent on its inclusion.

Windbag - That may be the case, and I did point that out myself. Remember folks - this is Policy (supported by guidance) - by it's very nature aspirational and intended to promote best practice - it's not dogma. As with PPG16 there will be exceptions. I can think of lots of sites where public engagement would be suitable during and after the fieldwork. Clearly it is going to be on a 'Case by case' basis - these are not rules. :0

David - we already have a system to determine the potential archaeological interest of development sites. It's called evaluation - and when it happens early on in the development process all kinds of things are possible.

Anyone have any other thoughts on the PPS. e.g. maybe it should be called 'Climate Change, Planning and Heritage'? :face-rain:

[vulpes]

Thanks Oxbeast for showing some imagination

Red earth - the word is bored.

and I find your attitude peculiar. Surely the reason we are doing archaeology is because of it's public interest - as distinct to road building which is done because we need roads - not to increase our knowledge or understanding of how roads are built. :face-huh: