Consultants sought for Curatorial Standards and guidance project

[P Prentice]

so - we are all agreed that the present system is flawed, flouted and bound to get worse. we need wider imput from concerned citizens, tighter regulation by an authority, licensing by an authority with the power to prevent practice? governed by a chartered institute - ha

[Dinosaur]

Nice try, but you ain't gonna get any more support that way, get the impressions the lines are currently fairly drawn, and IFA will have to epicallallaly increase its membership to get to the levels needed for chartered status (which seems unlikely unless it makes itself more relevant to wider cross section of archaeologists, ie diggers who currently get no value from paying fees to them whatsoever) }

[P Prentice]

Nice try, but you ain't gonna get any more support that way, get the impressions the lines are currently fairly drawn, and IFA will have to epicallallaly increase its membership to get to the levels needed for chartered status (which seems unlikely unless it makes itself more relevant to wider cross section of archaeologists, ie diggers who currently get no value from paying fees to them whatsoever) }

epicallallaly they will get the industry they deserve then wont they - and maybe they should spend more time wondering who gains the most from their servitude and who, if they used the votes they then would have, could do something about it

[RedEarth]

Surely your employer should be equally concerned? (and potentially glad that a 'concerned local citizen' is raising the issue for them) After all, sites getting destroyed 'on the quiet' means lost business for them, that's certainly seems to be the view around here although the problem isn't too critical in the immediate area just yet, although it may be coming....the unavailability of a certain HER could be rather inconvenient though

Sorry, haven't had chance to reply. I was really meaning that complaining as a 'concerned local' might also affect work as I deal with planners professionally - as a private contractor, not as a council employee though.

The other issue with local planners not necessarily taking on board the advice given by the county HES is that it is likely to further enhance the 'honeypot' effect that probably already exists, i.e. certain areas that are known to have plenty of archaeological potential will always be looked at, areas that are relatively blank won't. So the local planner will always acknowledge the need to carry out a watching brief every time a new garage is put up in 'Massiveromantownchester-on-the-Wold' but think there's no point in 'Buggeralleverhappenedhereton-on-Sea', meaning a potential lack of new discoveries in some areas. Also it does seem as if the local policy in each area can be quite different with some local authorities actively promoting heritage and even, amazingly enough, investing money in archaeology, while others act like it is a massive inconvenience. This has always been so but does it not make concepts of research through developer funded work a bit redundant?

[P Prentice]

post after post iterate the inadequacy of the planning system to deal with archaeology to our satisfaction. this is not new -it has always been so - even through PPG16. greater public engagement and participation can only be a good thing. the closure of her and dev con depts is appalling but it will only get worse if the process and the outcomes are not owned by the voters because too few of the politicians give a toss. let's get the 'intrigued' to become the eyes on the ground as well as the thorn in the side

[vulpes]

under the proposed National Planning Policy Framework for England things will only worsen and people will look back on the heady days of PPG16 and developer funded archaeological work as a golden age when archaeological remains were identified and excavated prior to their destruction...

http://www.nppfpractitionersadvisorygrou...-Group.pdf

[Marcus Brody]

people will look back on the heady days of PPG16 and developer funded archaeological work as a golden age when archaeological remains were identified and excavated prior to their destruction...

I completely agree with Vulpes on this - indeed, I think people to some extent already look back on the period between (roughly) 1997 and 2007 as a golden age, at least in terms of finding work. I know that when I left university, it was reasonable to assume that if you were determined to work in field archaeology, you'd be able to secure a work on the digging circuit. OK, the pay was fairly low and you'd have to relocate every month or two, but there was work to be had. I feel really sorry for anyone graduating at the moment who similarly wants to dig - it must be disheartening to be met with requirements for six months (or more) commercial experience and to know that you'll be competing against people with several years fieldwork under their belts.

[P Prentice]

i will say it again - it is the great british public who will save the archaeological profession - but only if they are included and kept informed

[Steven]

Hi
I'm not so pessimistic, after all the NPPF states clearly that LPAS have to have access to a HER, that assessment (including evaluation) should take place and that either preservation or excavation/recording (including publication and deposition) should take place. In certain ways the NPPF makes certain thing more explicit because it has condensed the wording of PPS5. Also EH have made some comments which may beef it up a bit.

It’s far better than I thought it would be as I feared it would say something like "just build anything anywhere and f**k all that weirdo greenie stuff".

[vulpes]

Yes, Steven. You're right, the bowdlerisation of PPS5 from a 14 page document to 2.5 pages at the back of a not very well received (by the RTPI and TCPA) draft is a huge leap forward for all concerned. :face-approve: