5th September 2007, 10:18 PM
This one has annoyed me enough to return while a bit pissed after spending the entire day, after a series of meetings lasting over the last four weeks being a 'strong curator' arguing in line with the UDP policy that known archaeological remains of national importance should be preserved not sacrificed. I have almost got to the stage when the other side is beginning to surrender but occasionally I have to do a bit of other work. Part of this other work is going through the costings for the building of a new school in gruesome detail to prove that the developer is lying when they claim that the cost of the archaeology will prevent the development of a school - ah the academy system is just excellent. I am sure you can believe that there is no pressure from within the council for me to compromise on this and let the developer do what the hell they want no matter what is on site.
I have also just received a DBA from a consultant which has managed to get every UDP designation incorrect, got the policy numbers wrong and misidentified the location of the site. Back to the consultant and I estimate that this will take the usual several drafts to get an accurate document from this bunch. A bit less of this would give me some more time for some 'strong curating'.
This does not mention the fact that I am having to fill in for a conservation officer who this council have yet to advertise for in a sensible place so this will probably last for another 5 months.
Occasionally among everything else I manage a bit of 'strong curating'.
If you want 'strong curating' get PPG 15 and 16 rewritten - we all know this is not going to happen until the heritage white paper has bedded down. Then get every council to rewrite their heritage policies to reflect the new guidance and start to enforce them, redraw their policy maps etc. 10 years at a minimum I guess. The petition reads like a 'here is a list of curators we would like to get rid of'. Fast tracking may not actually be a threat if it means that land is flagged up early on in the designation process so a response can be made.
What might be useful is a wish list for the, hopefully, new heritage policy guidance. Obviously everyone is now very well paid after the success of the last petition so we can move on from that.
I have also just received a DBA from a consultant which has managed to get every UDP designation incorrect, got the policy numbers wrong and misidentified the location of the site. Back to the consultant and I estimate that this will take the usual several drafts to get an accurate document from this bunch. A bit less of this would give me some more time for some 'strong curating'.
This does not mention the fact that I am having to fill in for a conservation officer who this council have yet to advertise for in a sensible place so this will probably last for another 5 months.
Occasionally among everything else I manage a bit of 'strong curating'.
If you want 'strong curating' get PPG 15 and 16 rewritten - we all know this is not going to happen until the heritage white paper has bedded down. Then get every council to rewrite their heritage policies to reflect the new guidance and start to enforce them, redraw their policy maps etc. 10 years at a minimum I guess. The petition reads like a 'here is a list of curators we would like to get rid of'. Fast tracking may not actually be a threat if it means that land is flagged up early on in the designation process so a response can be made.
What might be useful is a wish list for the, hopefully, new heritage policy guidance. Obviously everyone is now very well paid after the success of the last petition so we can move on from that.