Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
25th February 2006, 01:12 PM
Theoretically, AGLAO may take an interest in this. As with the archaeological community at large, there's quite a schism there between those who like and dislike the IFA. However, both groups should have a vested interest in seeing this dealt with speedily to prove or disprove the need for the IFA, and maintain that the curatorial service is impartial.
Of the Clan Sutton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
25th February 2006, 01:22 PM
Can't really see what the IFA has got to do with this, unless the curtaor is a member and has acted unprofessionally - which term does not include a difference of opinion.
If the planning application has not yet been determined you can as always, submit your views (lodge an objection) to the planning authority. I suspect that it alrady has, so all you are left with is a public campaign which may or may not have the slightest effect.
For what it's worth I think it's a ludicrous recommendation, but then what do I know.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
25th February 2006, 03:10 PM
I apologise in advance for my ignorance but in this type of situation who is to 'blame' for the proposed action. Who would have the final say or have made the decision to sacrifice this archaeology or as the case may be attempt to turn a blind eye? Is it down to the county archaeologists discretion or a collection of people? Could it be the case that the developers plans changed in which surely they would have to allow for the known level of deep strat and makes the appropriate changes in order to at least attempt to preserve in situ?. I know this must happen all the time, but this is unacceptable, this material cannot just be ripped out can it? is there no remit for at least a watching brief? Who would decide this? What about a petition sent to the developers or something along these lines?? pretty lame but not sure what else can be done short of laying in front of a JCB! }
in full PPE obviously!
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
25th February 2006, 04:06 PM
It would seem that the developer is not to blame if he has complied with all the conditions. It is the conditions that are to the blame if they place no constraint on the unrecorded removal of the remains on the street frontage, and there is no nedd to change any plans, as in Troll's scenario there was no requirement for pres insitu anyway.
Don't want to teach the curators to suck eggs, or state the obvious, but builders do not work to the planning application drawings, which are pretty pictures and generally at small scale and not very many of them. The working drawings which are, err, worked to, are very detailed and numerous and include engineer's drawings of piles and services and things, which are not normally submitted with a planning application. The structural design is not normally finished, if started, at that stage. If conditions are imposed relating to foundations and underground services, the design will probably be worked out in principle, but minor changes may not get conveyed to the planners, who are not normally in the loop. It's a matter of keeping on top of it, having sight of the contract drawings, being kept up to date and checking it on site.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
25th February 2006, 04:54 PM
All very difficult if overworked and underfunded.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
25th February 2006, 04:56 PM
Is it possible that the curators own planning department has over-ruled him/her and this is the best that can be achieved?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
26th February 2006, 02:20 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by the invisible man
If conditions are imposed relating to foundations and underground services, the design will probably be worked out in principle, but minor changes may not get conveyed to the planners, who are not normally in the loop. It's a matter of keeping on top of it, having sight of the contract drawings, being kept up to date and checking it on site.
I may be being a bit naive but surely the planners are supposed to be kept in the loop? I would have thought it was part of the process that changes to an agreed development had to be notified to the planning authority and to the county archaeologist. I am aware that curators are overworked and underfunded but it seems that in this scenario the developers are taking advantage and sneeking in changes because they know no-one has time to check them.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
26th February 2006, 03:02 PM
can anything be done about this kind of situation realistically? or is this something that has to be accepted as a given? Ok so archaeology gets disturbed and destroyed all the time through construction work: piling and ground beams etc but at least this material has usually been subject to some form of investigation/assessment - what happened to PPG 16? Surely a watching brief is warranted at the very least.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
26th February 2006, 05:45 PM
Given what happend to the last curator and the museum service over the last few years in 'hypothetical' city, I wouldn't hold your breath for much support for archaeology from the city council. It may be worth contacting the relevent EH inspector, and some oppisition political parties may support concerns over the ...erm ... eccentricities of the regeneration plan....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
27th February 2006, 11:12 AM
Quote:quote:Is it possible that the curators own planning department has over-ruled him/her and this is the best that can be achieved?
We can only make recommendations to planners for inclusion in their reports and the planner then weighs up the responses which they have received from their various advisors and makes a judgement on the development from that. Depending upon the importance of the scheme the decision will either be delegated to the officer or come before the planning committee.
The question here is whether the development has obtained planning permission. If that is the case is the developer using an old brief for the site to devise a mitigation strategy which may relate to a different development proposal or has a new brief been written to take into account the street frontage development?
