Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Just looking at one recent example, the chapters following (or 'below') Cultural Heritage were:
Ecology
Landscape and Visual Amenity
Land Use
Non-Motorised Users
Water Quality and Hydrology
Vehicle travellers, and
Geology, Soils and Contaminated Land.
You should also remember that the order may simply be that in which the environmental coordinator feels like putting them in the final report. Often, different coordinators will use the same (possibly random) order for all their reports.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
Sith Wrote:You should also remember that the order may simply be that in which the environmental coordinator feels like putting them in the final report. Often, different coordinators will use the same (possibly random) order for all their reports.
Yeah I suspect this is the case. Ecology is definately taken more seriously than archaeology by the construction industry as they can be prosecuted, fined and even sent to prison for breaking the rules.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
They can for archaeological infringements of planning too, actually, plus the penalties for bulldozing a Scheduled site are not exactly slapped-wrist territory....
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
but how often do companies actually get fined?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Any of the Curator/EH types who post on here got any figures?
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
Would not be possible to answer that one without AUP breach... I suspect teh thread has run it course... are you satisfied that you have an answer? Do you have a full opinion now... give us the final verdict
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2010
11th May 2010, 09:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 11th May 2010, 09:48 PM by trainedchimp.)
Quote:but how often do companies actually get fined?
just giving a number of how many planning conditions go to enforcement over non-discharge of archaeological planning and LBC conditions or SMC breaches/failure to obtain SMC shouldn't be too hard and wouldn't breach AUP. They've got to be figures that EH or DCLG must have kicking around. The names are immaterial and no-one needs them, but a number would be useful and non-controversial. I can think of a couple of instances, but that's getting into AUP territory, which is why I'm not and (I hope) no-one else is going to provide anecdotes...
I just hope it's more logical than the record of the DPP in Treasure Act cases...:face-stir:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
I think you are right David and this thread seems to have run its course.....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
The poll graph seems to have assumed it's final shape, is BAJR going to pass it on to IFA?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
BAJR Wrote:... I suspect teh thread has run it course... are you satisfied that you have an answer? Do you have a full opinion now... give us the final verdict
Although the discussion could go on for decades, I agree I've made my point.......opinion (amongst the sample) of the IFA is low. This seems to be due to lack of publicity, and transfer of information on IFA's part, but seems to indicate a real lack of faith in the institute. And possibly a failing of the IFA to really connect with field archaeologists (troops on the ground).
As Dinosaur asked, will this info be passed onto the IFA? I think its an important point.
