4th September 2007, 12:14 PM
Quote:quote:Currently, despite PPG16 and especially with reference to new housing archaeological mitigation is seemingly lacking or of low quality due to pressures from planners and government.
Speaking as a curator in one of the key growth areas of the south east I can't agree that this is the situation - certainly not in my experience anyway. Pressure to reduce quality usually comes from developers or consultants.
Point 2 is not especially clear either - it seems to be saying that some curators are of poor quality - again although it may be true?! Why should I be queuing up to slag off my colleagues to the PM? Instead of lobbying for 'stronger' curators - whatever that means. We should be lobbying for more curators to meet increased development workload.
As for 'powers', yes these are limited and will probably stay so - Curators are fundamentally specialist advisors - We neither make planning decisions or enforce them. The power lies with the politicians or is delegated to planning officers.
A key area for improvement would not be an increase in our powers but a tightening up of PPG16 in a replacement PPS - particularly in relation to publication and dissemination of fieldwork.
Would suggest that petition is poorly worded and misses the key points.