22nd February 2007, 02:17 PM
Generally speaking, and in relation to all environmental issues rather than just archaeology, I am in favour of more public consultation than is common in the UK. However, I think that the amount of consultation that is currently available is currently under-appreciated.
All planning applications are publicised (in a pretty weedy way) by the local authority concerned, and members of the public are entitled to see the relevant documents and comment or object. In my experience, it is rare for a large scheme or one that would bave big environmental effects to go by without some feedback actually being received from the public.
The largest schemes, including most public infrastructure, go through EIA. This increasingly often involves much more extensive and effective public consultation than your run-of-the-mill planning application. I have taken part in large-scale consultation events involving maildrops to 10s of 1000s of people and exhibitions visited by 1000s, very heavily staffed so that all those who want to ask questions can do so, with questionnaires to obtain feedback. The UK regulations on EIA have recently been tightened following a new EU Directive to ensure that public consultation can genuinely influence decision making.
My experience is that people sometimes do object to a proposal on archaeological grounds, but every such objection that I have encountered has been produced by someone whose real objection is something else completely; they are simply using the archaeology as a back-up. Quite often, the alternatives they propose would have worse archaeological effects.
There have been other cases where much stronger archaeological objections would have been possible - but, strangely, no one has objected on those grounds (this includes one scheme where there was a strong local opposition group, who sought all possible objections and took them to a Public Inquiry at which I gave evidence - but they did not question the archaeological issues).
On public accountability, that largely goes through the public authorities that give permission for developments (usually local councils, sometimes government departments). I personally think that the British political system means that public accountability for individual planning decisions through that route is too weak - but designing a better system is a very difficult thing to do!
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
All planning applications are publicised (in a pretty weedy way) by the local authority concerned, and members of the public are entitled to see the relevant documents and comment or object. In my experience, it is rare for a large scheme or one that would bave big environmental effects to go by without some feedback actually being received from the public.
The largest schemes, including most public infrastructure, go through EIA. This increasingly often involves much more extensive and effective public consultation than your run-of-the-mill planning application. I have taken part in large-scale consultation events involving maildrops to 10s of 1000s of people and exhibitions visited by 1000s, very heavily staffed so that all those who want to ask questions can do so, with questionnaires to obtain feedback. The UK regulations on EIA have recently been tightened following a new EU Directive to ensure that public consultation can genuinely influence decision making.
My experience is that people sometimes do object to a proposal on archaeological grounds, but every such objection that I have encountered has been produced by someone whose real objection is something else completely; they are simply using the archaeology as a back-up. Quite often, the alternatives they propose would have worse archaeological effects.
There have been other cases where much stronger archaeological objections would have been possible - but, strangely, no one has objected on those grounds (this includes one scheme where there was a strong local opposition group, who sought all possible objections and took them to a Public Inquiry at which I gave evidence - but they did not question the archaeological issues).
On public accountability, that largely goes through the public authorities that give permission for developments (usually local councils, sometimes government departments). I personally think that the British political system means that public accountability for individual planning decisions through that route is too weak - but designing a better system is a very difficult thing to do!
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished