BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Chartered Archaeologists are to be a reality
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
My personal opinion is that rather than integrate archaeology into the planning process we should as a profession be campaigning to remove it. The only way to manage our archaeological heritage should be through changes to the law that would result in automatic protect for our buried and built heritage unless permission is granted for its disturbance, recording and in the extreme, its destruction. Such legislation exists in other EU countries and in essence is the policy promoted by the Valetta convention. It would by consequence make unauthorised metal detecting a crime. All current HER staff would be re-employed by a body such as Historic England to monitor and recommend as implementation of the new heritage law. Cost to the tax payers. Nothing. Benefit to the archaeological resource: priceless! I don't think they need a 100% payrise. Maybe 100% job security would be enough...
I am with Kevin Statutory HERs and Local Archaeology Services. Anyone want to start a 38 Degrees campaign?
That anything like Fifty Shades? Big Grin
kevin wooldridge Wrote:My personal opinion is that rather than integrate archaeology into the planning process we should as a profession be campaigning to remove it. The only way to manage our archaeological heritage should be through changes to the law that would result in automatic protect for our buried and built heritage unless permission is granted for its disturbance, recording and in the extreme, its destruction. Such legislation exists in other EU countries and in essence is the policy promoted by the Valetta convention. It would by consequence make unauthorised metal detecting a crime. All current HER staff would be re-employed by a body such as Historic England to monitor and recommend as implementation of the new heritage law. Cost to the tax payers. Nothing. Benefit to the archaeological resource: priceless! I don't think they need a 100% payrise. Maybe 100% job security would be enough...

Not sure this would have a beneficial effect at all. Its a sad fact of the world that only Laws that are 'of interest' or politically expedient are given the right amount of funding/man(person!)power and even interest.

I recently found out from an ecologist that even though they, in a similar situation, theoretically have the law to back them up its only the planning process that protects ecology.

The police do not pursue people who kill newts, even though its against the law.

Remove the need to mitigate damage to archaeological remains from the planning process will result in total loss of archaeological remains.....even if it is made against the law.

The only way forward is to strengthen the need to mitigate, possibly by backing by a law (as in ecology), strengthen the county archaeologists and HER, give EH more funding...
But in countries which have statutory protection for archaeology (such as Norway) the imperative lies with the planning authority to consult with the archaeological regulator/curator. I don't see why that wouldn't work here in the UK. It would remove the need for archaeology to be chasing the lowest price denominator and remove any suggestion of collusion between the developer and their 'pet' archaeologist. It currently works fine where planning authorities are required by law to include an EIA as part of the planning regimen. Why not with archaeology as well? Having decided that archaeology is necessary the archaeological regulator/curator sets the tender price and the developer is obligated to pay as part of their planning consent...
Sounds a great deal better than what we've currently got here, and as Kevin says is quite likely to improve quality
But wouldn't this mean rather a political and cultural shift towards the state taking 'ownership' of archaeology, at a time when the mantra seems to be to shift the majority of responsibility away from national and local authority? Or have I got the wrong end of the whatsit? Which wouldn't surprise me by the way...
kevin wooldridge Wrote:But in countries which have statutory protection for archaeology (such as Norway) the imperative lies with the planning authority to consult with the archaeological regulator/curator. I don't see why that wouldn't work here in the UK. It would remove the need for archaeology to be chasing the lowest price denominator and remove any suggestion of collusion between the developer and their 'pet' archaeologist. It currently works fine where planning authorities are required by law to include an EIA as part of the planning regimen. Why not with archaeology as well? Having decided that archaeology is necessary the archaeological regulator/curator sets the tender price and the developer is obligated to pay as part of their planning consent...

I must have misunderstood. I thought you meant remove the need for archaeological impact assessment and remove the county archaeologists...i.e. remove archaeology from the planning process??
Wax Wrote:I am with Kevin Statutory HERs and Local Archaeology Services. Anyone want to start a 38 Degrees campaign?

Dinosaur Wrote:That anything like Fifty Shades? Big Grin

Grin. No its a very successful not-secret society and lobbying group that uses the awesome power of the block vote, think they managed half a million on the petition to stop the selll off of our forests.
I think I am with Kevin and you guys on this:
GoodJob!

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/ , also, is well worth a try, with very little to lose...

:face-approve:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10