I don’t approve of lists-you might…particularly ones that try to tell you what they are not. Are they worried about some illegality? Some past council practise that was found to be very restrictive?
Possibly I also support the cowboy archaeologist or also those newly “qualified” by the dubious education system in this country to attempt to set up and compete against the next so called archaeologist. I don’t think that any curator should in any way have any baring on the selection or approval of an archaeologist or what standard lacking detail that they might want to trade under even if it might be pompous twit.
Mr brody I applaud the motive behind your in depth defence of a system which is presumably alien law in your neck of the highland woods. Presumably your clear sightedness is based on their clearances.
Most pre planning application archaeological information is mostly not in the public domain and nor should it be. It should come into the public domain when the application is made, that is when I the public would like to see it. I the public should like to consider the information, comment on it and my comments be relayed to the people who approve or not planning applications under TCPA. PPS offered this system unfortunately those that have pensions to consider are still using the planning consultation period to undertake non-transparent negotiations within the applicant system/fog to arrive at decision notice scheme of work conditions which are almost always the first time when my clients discover that they have/need the great fortune to employ an archaeologist like myself.
In as much that I hold the physical examination of the site to be the singular of archaeological significance, the inexpensive evaluation I hold over any other type of report held by whoever in what ever binding. I have no use of what might not be or is in someone’s add hock collection of so called archaeological information. As an aside the information in somebody’s HER is not and cannot be consistent between sites. I should suggest that this is unfair on my clients who should not be made to suffer the consequences.
Why the PPS’s are littered with mostly footnotes to a figment of no ones statutory imagination I imagine is something that a more secularly pensioned HER people who wrote PPS might like to explain.
That these SMRs should not be funded and will not exit outside the index of a museum collection is the world in which I imagine that we are going to exist in the future. How does that world work for me. Brody you got your finger in the dyke whats going to happen when the dyke crumbles around it?
Possibly I also support the cowboy archaeologist or also those newly “qualified” by the dubious education system in this country to attempt to set up and compete against the next so called archaeologist. I don’t think that any curator should in any way have any baring on the selection or approval of an archaeologist or what standard lacking detail that they might want to trade under even if it might be pompous twit.
Mr brody I applaud the motive behind your in depth defence of a system which is presumably alien law in your neck of the highland woods. Presumably your clear sightedness is based on their clearances.
Most pre planning application archaeological information is mostly not in the public domain and nor should it be. It should come into the public domain when the application is made, that is when I the public would like to see it. I the public should like to consider the information, comment on it and my comments be relayed to the people who approve or not planning applications under TCPA. PPS offered this system unfortunately those that have pensions to consider are still using the planning consultation period to undertake non-transparent negotiations within the applicant system/fog to arrive at decision notice scheme of work conditions which are almost always the first time when my clients discover that they have/need the great fortune to employ an archaeologist like myself.
Quote:[SIZE=3]I can't see other professional contractors undertaking the sort of systemic monitoring of other people's reportsThis is not relevant to the pre-application situation- presumably some fig leaf for your ignorance of what happens south of your virtual boarder. I never read other peoples reports unless they are germane and easily available for an area in which I have a client. I don’t ever intend to monitor reports. I use them for information that might be relevant. If they are written as if by a buffoon then I treat the information as being from a buffoon. Whatever the information as a field archaeologist I guarantee nobody else’s information bar mine own which results from my own physical examination of the site. I guarantee it for the ends of the client.
[/SIZE]
In as much that I hold the physical examination of the site to be the singular of archaeological significance, the inexpensive evaluation I hold over any other type of report held by whoever in what ever binding. I have no use of what might not be or is in someone’s add hock collection of so called archaeological information. As an aside the information in somebody’s HER is not and cannot be consistent between sites. I should suggest that this is unfair on my clients who should not be made to suffer the consequences.
Why the PPS’s are littered with mostly footnotes to a figment of no ones statutory imagination I imagine is something that a more secularly pensioned HER people who wrote PPS might like to explain.
Quote:[SIZE=3]Far from setting out a vision for how commercial archaeology would function in the absence of HERs, as your selective quotes would suggest, the need for some form of HER is mentioned repeatedly in the PPS, suggesting that the authors would not agree with your statement that [SIZE=6]we don't need SMRs for commercial work.[/SIZE]By [SIZE=6]we you don’t mean commercial field archaeologists do you? I being field evaluation based do not need HERs as much as you have pointed out in your rambblings it is those indispensibles, the algao people, pretending to be the “regional and local planning authorities" who desperatly make out that they do:[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Quote:[SIZE=3]Policy HE.2, is quite clear that 'Regional and local planning authorities should ensure that they have evidence about the historic environment and heritage assets in their area and that this is publicly documented...without an inexpensive field evaluation that last sentance really is a load of rubbish isnit algao
Local planning authorities should either maintain or have access to a historic environment record...
Local planning authorities should use the evidence to assess the type, numbers, distribution, significance and condition of heritage assets and the contribution that they may make to their environment now and in the future. It should also be used to help predict the likelihood that currently unidentified heritage assets, particularly sites of historic and archaeological interest, will be discovered in the future'.
[/SIZE]
That these SMRs should not be funded and will not exit outside the index of a museum collection is the world in which I imagine that we are going to exist in the future. How does that world work for me. Brody you got your finger in the dyke whats going to happen when the dyke crumbles around it?
Reason: your past is my past