Whats Good about PPS5

[gonetopot]

@Dinosaur: DBAs in some areas I work in have become very tricky indeed as PPS5 is extremely inconsistently applied even by curators within the same county. Discussions on the 'impact' on 'heritage assets', and indeed classifying what 'heritage assets' are

[vulpes]

As a curator and to bump this thread up a bit. I would state that (in line with PPS5) I expect units now to be not only evaluating the archaeological potential of a site but also to be thinking at that early stage about the benefit for public understanding and involvement that may be derived from the potential mitigation. As for pricing, well I honestly think that you as contractors and your developer clients can expect to have to do more in future because there simply won't be the public sector staff there to make up the shortfall. Remember PPG16 was brought in by the conservatives to put the onus onto the private sector, realistically one can only expect this responsibility to increase under the present lot. Particularly as the public sector is about to shrink somewhat. A licence to print money? I'm not too sure......

[Unitof1]

i think that pssi5 is so much better than ppg because it has got rid of archaeological terms such as watching brief I think because I have not read it. I used to print money before I got into archaeology but this is so much easyier. Currently working on a site where permision to destroy a chiurch was given so that an oldy worldy cottage could be built 80 metres to the north-you know the type of thing heritage blend bricks plastic soffits that look like rafters-and you can see the dpm three courses up the wall above the surrounding ground level-nice. So for the publics understanding of a site I think that its best to keep them guessing.

[Odinn]

I expect units now to be not only evaluating the archaeological potential of a site but also to be thinking at that early stage about the benefit for public understanding and involvement that may be derived from the potential mitigation.

Public involvement? You mean like getting them on site to help with the digging to keep costs down? :face-stir:

As for pricing, well I honestly think that you as contractors and your developer clients can expect to have to do more in future because there simply won't be the public sector staff there to make up the shortfall.

Eh? Could you explain this please? In what way should contracting units step in to take over from public sector staff that are not there? Surely, if the contractors start doing curatorial work that is going to lead to a conflict of interest.

[kevin wooldridge]

One could argue that the whole of PPS5 is based upon a conflict of interests.......

[Odinn]

One could argue that the whole of PPS5 is based upon a conflict of interests.......

Very true, even if that was not the conflict I meant, assuming, of course that I have understood correctly your meaning and that you meant what I am thinking.

[vulpes]

@Odinn, what I meant was that commercial units can expect to do much more outreach work as part of their (and developers) responsibilities under PPS5 and the (probably) much depleted local government regime than before. This is because there will most lik

[Odinn]

@Odinn, what I meant was that commercial units can expect to do much more outreach work as part of their (and developers) responsibilities under PPS5

As long as it is clearly part of the brief and a requirement of the planning condition it should be done. Will curators get training in how to assess outreach work properly? Will there be public satisfaction surveys before the condition is signed off?

One thing I am uncertain about is the extent to which the reduction in numbers of local authority archaeologists is relevant in this. If outreach is a part of PPS5 then it should be written into the briefs and a requirement of the planning permission regardless of the number of local authority archaeologists that are in post. If it is not part of PPS5 then the curatorial archaeologists may be over-reaching their authority by demanding that outreach is done as part of commercial fieldwork. That is not to say that I do not agree with outreach. I give of my own time for outreach work for free, but if it becomes part of a commercial job then it should be paid for and the people doing it should get paid. Otherwise it is yet another way to exploit the staff that are already underpaid.

[kevin wooldridge]

One thing I am uncertain about is the extent to which the reduction in numbers of local authority archaeologists is relevant in this.

One example might be when a local authority employs an outreach officer or sponsors an Archaeology Day (as recently happened in Milton Keynes for example) or an exhibition or lecture series where archaeologists and/or developers might be invited to attend and showcase recent works in which they have been involved. If spending cuts were to curtail such activities or posts then there might be more work and expense placed on the archaeologists and developers in fulfilling 'outreach' requirements....

[Odinn]

Thinking about your example, Kevin, I am coming at it from the other direction; the employment by the council of an outreach officer to arrange events represents a cost saving to the developer/unit. The norm is that the developer must fund the outreach as part of discharging the condition. Therefore they have to allow for time and money to be spent on putting on an exhibition at a local library, giving talks to the locals, or however the outreach is to be done. This represents the normal cost. If the council has an outreach officer who helps to sort such things out, that theoretically cuts down on the time and money that the developer needs to spend and so savings are made.