3rd July 2015, 12:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 3rd July 2015, 12:40 PM by Marc Berger.)
Hello Hosty I think to try and answer this one I am going to have to take my cloths off.
whats go on with me is that I came into commercial archaeology, after doing a degree, at the ground level with that as my desk based, so to speak, and was never really that keen on more "desk based" as it appeared to me that desked based were justified on the grounds of 1. evaluations being expensive and some how 2. desked based made you a better digger and 3. desk based might get the client out of having to do any evaluation. So the word evaluation tended to be blurred with assessment and the whole business was taken over by consultants and nobody ever dug their own desk based assessment or ever intended to. So stuff'em. Still Limp you say.
Thing is that I had spent a lot of time being told I was not a good digger to try and educate me and I had to learn about trowels wearing holes in back pockets the hard way which is by wearing down a trowel in your back pocket and I also spent a lot of time doing evaluations often based on the nearby presence of some heritage assets, designated or not, for which we actually found absolutely no direct evidence (purely on the reason that there was no direct stratigraphic relationship). And this is ppg16 days. As I grow up so did the local mounties and they settled into service agreements with planning authorities and which evolved into contracts hidden behind confidentiality. Occasionally they would allow somebody to call them the county archaeologist and that helped with their limp issues but not mine.
And then policies changed and changed again and became frameworks which nobody knows if they are real or not or if the local plan is either but the mounties, with full knowledge of their service agreements, climbed all over NPPF and invented Heritage statement and even though they could not get it into NPPF and had to use the terms desk based and evaluation to give them some credibility and had to call it what ever tsmarsh said it was short for.
and I don't know if that is also called a Heritage Statement or if a mounty just has to give the appearance that they know these thing.
I know its hard and that the more that you try and understand the harder it gets but you have also got to wonder if para 141
so really heritage statements should be done by the mounties. At the moment I am wondering if you could use the data protection act to make them produce all that they know for a site. I know that's still a bit limp but I never said that it wasnt going to be hard.
but it gets harder. Why would anybody want a heritage statement if when applying for outline permission they were not asked to produce one?
Bit warm today I imagine I will take a cold shower.
whats go on with me is that I came into commercial archaeology, after doing a degree, at the ground level with that as my desk based, so to speak, and was never really that keen on more "desk based" as it appeared to me that desked based were justified on the grounds of 1. evaluations being expensive and some how 2. desked based made you a better digger and 3. desk based might get the client out of having to do any evaluation. So the word evaluation tended to be blurred with assessment and the whole business was taken over by consultants and nobody ever dug their own desk based assessment or ever intended to. So stuff'em. Still Limp you say.
Thing is that I had spent a lot of time being told I was not a good digger to try and educate me and I had to learn about trowels wearing holes in back pockets the hard way which is by wearing down a trowel in your back pocket and I also spent a lot of time doing evaluations often based on the nearby presence of some heritage assets, designated or not, for which we actually found absolutely no direct evidence (purely on the reason that there was no direct stratigraphic relationship). And this is ppg16 days. As I grow up so did the local mounties and they settled into service agreements with planning authorities and which evolved into contracts hidden behind confidentiality. Occasionally they would allow somebody to call them the county archaeologist and that helped with their limp issues but not mine.
And then policies changed and changed again and became frameworks which nobody knows if they are real or not or if the local plan is either but the mounties, with full knowledge of their service agreements, climbed all over NPPF and invented Heritage statement and even though they could not get it into NPPF and had to use the terms desk based and evaluation to give them some credibility and had to call it what ever tsmarsh said it was short for.
Quote:You could call it a Description of the Significance of any Heritage Assets Affected by the Development Statement, but Heritage Statement seems somehow simpler…and that para 128 which is about as relevant to an evaluation as a tissue is to mount Vesuvius.
Quote:It is a case of using one, or another or both , as fits the situation. A heritage Statement has value just as much as Evaluation. it is their proper implementation and use that is important.what tsmarsh did not mention is that they invented 128 to help them out with para. 129. And para 129 is very much about how they describe their service agreements with the authorities but these service agreements were probably not designed to furnish 129 so the only time when anybody is made to write a 128 is when the mounties are worried that they might be called for a 129. I know very limp.
Quote:129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular
significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal
(including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking
account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should
take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal
on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s
conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
and I don't know if that is also called a Heritage Statement or if a mounty just has to give the appearance that they know these thing.
I know its hard and that the more that you try and understand the harder it gets but you have also got to wonder if para 141
Quote:141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance ofis referring to the mounties 129 which makes the mounties 129 all the more relevant.
the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development
management publicly accessible.
so really heritage statements should be done by the mounties. At the moment I am wondering if you could use the data protection act to make them produce all that they know for a site. I know that's still a bit limp but I never said that it wasnt going to be hard.
but it gets harder. Why would anybody want a heritage statement if when applying for outline permission they were not asked to produce one?
Bit warm today I imagine I will take a cold shower.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist