Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
PPS Consultation
#31
Vulpes Wrote:Fair point Red Earth about the possible impact of the associated costs, but improving working practice in one area needn't drag another down. This is akin to the classic CBI opposition to Health and Safety and other forms of regulation as being bad for business.

Lonnie Donegan is the poor bloke whose song you sampled

I'm still not happy with your take on Joe Public's interest in archaeology stopping at shiny things. Aren't most people interested in other people - past and present? If we can't make archaeology interesting and relevant to the wider public why should anyone - let alone developers spend any money on it? However much we agree, you do have me confused here.



The potential difficulty I can see in terms of cost is that developers might not object too much to spending money on paying for outreach as, after all, it is potentially great advertising. But add that on to the cost of the archaeological work too and they might start calling for concessions somewhere to remove the 'burden'. At present, of course, this sort of public involvement does happen anyway where the developer is forward thinking enough to realise that it is a good thing but this is often on a fairly ad hoc and casual basis. If it became a rock solid requirement I'm not sure where it might lead, although it would be great if if happened.

Does that mean I owe Lonnie some money?

The public must be remarkably different where you are to everywhere else in the country. The public I'm thinking of are fairly ordinary people with some interest in archaeology, but are largely only bothered if it is particularly exciting or shiny. The same people who watch Antiques Roadshow only to see how much things are, who vote on X Factor, and who made the recent Anglo Saxon treasure story the lead item on the BBC website. Many archaeologists are essentially the same. Don't tell me your first thought on seeing that treasure wasn't 'ooooh, shiny!'

Obviously this is a gross generalisation, and I can't remember what we were even discussing now, but it does have an impact on how you determine what is of public interest, which is very difficult to judge. I would feel a bit embarrassed organising some outreach/public activity at the client's expense on the basis that the site is 'archaeologically really interesting', only for no-one to turn up.
Reply
#32
'Obviously this is a gross generalisation'

Obviously.

Sorry, Can't waste any more time debating how devalued you're opinion of the general populace is, I've got an open day to organise. Lets hope someone shows up. :face-kiss:
[INDENT]Shiny assed county mounty, office lurker, coffee junkie and facebook scanner[/INDENT]
Reply
#33
A couple of points to throw in the mixer:

1) An awful lot of archaeology is only visible to field archaeologists. All the negative features identifiable as a series of slight colour changes tend to be lost on a great number of people: non-field archaeologists; developers; curators; consultants; members of the general public. I'm not saying that there there is no value in conducting site tours for many excavations, but I've given many where you get a pretty bemused expression- you can see them thinking "I'll take your word for it". Particularly attractive sites will include a series of small walls, negative charcoal-filled features cut into yellow sand, skeletons or a combination of these.

2) Clients have many reasons for not wanting members of the general public near their developments: additional publicity; H&S (particularly insurance issues); and security.

3) Archaeologists may have plenty of reasons not to allow members of the public onto sites during excavations, such as theft, vandalism and negative publicity.
?He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself?
Chinese Proverb
Reply
#34
Vulpes is being obtuse, in that RedEarth is not saying the public are stupid, but there is a limit - Would your open day be on a site with slight coloured stains the only discernible feature.

What is this Open Day... where is it, and what's available.. can we see pics as well of teh hundreds that turn up. As a member of the public, I should be able to come along... so where and when please. :face-confused:

As Windbag has tried to express, it is complicated.. and guidelines are ...er..... case by case? what are the parameters? and what point do you know? After the evaluation you say... BUT... I know of one site where the evaluation found medieval backlot archaeology... the excavation found amazing archaeology from the Neolithic to the Present... worth a Site Visit and interpretation now?? ah... never costed in... shame that. Give me parameters... not fluff :face-huh:
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Reply
#35
It could also be a useful way for developments subject to Environmental Impact Assessment to show a "positive impact" arising from the development, particularly if it is contentious for heritage-related matters.
?He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself?
Chinese Proverb
Reply
#36
http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/mod/groups/topi..._guid=8800
Breaking news: Government U-turn on PPS 15
on Rescue News.


11 hours ago


RESCUE is pleased to see that the government has acknowledged the widespread concern over the content of the proposed PPS expressed by bodies concerned with heritage and conservation.

We welcome the comment by the spokesman for the The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) quoted in the Daily Telegraph

?The redraft is extremely welcome news, though we will need to examine the final policy closely to make sure that it addresses our serious concerns?.

RESCUE will be scrutinising the revised draft carefully to ensure that the concerns that we highlighted in our response to the consultation have been acknowledged and addressed.

What do you all think? Is PPS15 ever really likely to be implemented? And in what form? Let Rescue know, and have your say on the future of developer-funded archaeology....

Further Information

* Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Planning minister John Healey has promised to ?redraft? Planning Policy Statement 15 (PPS 15) after heritage and conservation bodies branded the planned document a serious risk to the nation?s historic buildings.
Link: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/...ferrer=RSS
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/65691...utcry.html
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  General permitted development rights consultation historic building 28 16,347 17th October 2015, 08:27 PM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  BAJRs 2014/2015 consultation BAJR 9 4,096 5th December 2013, 02:22 PM
Last Post: GnomeKing
  DCMS Listed Buildings consultation - 23rd Aug deadline Man from Porlock 17 6,414 17th August 2012, 08:32 PM
Last Post: Unitof1
  Southport consultation BAJR 38 9,607 30th April 2011, 09:54 PM
Last Post: Boxoffrogs
  Improving historic environment practice - consultation BAJR 19 5,660 19th April 2011, 05:13 PM
Last Post: kevin wooldridge
  English Heritage consultation on prehistoric,urban and historic industrial research BAJR 2 1,545 22nd August 2010, 08:13 PM
Last Post: GnomeKing
  IfA - Salary benchamarking, report and new consultation BAJR 55 13,353 21st July 2010, 12:55 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  PPS15 Draft Consultation ex-archaeologist 23 4,572 14th September 2009, 05:26 PM
Last Post: vulpes
  New PPS Consultation Document Paul Belford 34 6,807 14th August 2009, 11:55 PM
Last Post: Paul Belford
  New PPS 15 - Consultation Curator Kid 4 2,182 24th July 2009, 01:49 PM
Last Post: Paul Belford

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)