8th June 2015, 11:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 8th June 2015, 11:30 AM by Marc Berger.)
I think it should be aimed at the Karzy. Why is the brand hysterical England producing stuff on behalf of the Historic Environment Forum
Published March 2015 just before an election (or was it put up post election). If you can read the introduction you find that its aimed at everybody and their relative accept dear old field archaeologist unless you think "Decision-taking for assets with archaeological interest." is anything to do with field archaeology rather than navel staring. Just look at the list of interventions they put in before doing an evaluation although to give it some due it has not mentioned heritage statement.
This is how I would write it. Dear field archaeologist get to the client before they go anywhere near a planning application. Blast a bloody great inexpensive evaluation trench right across the site ask the developer to give you the finds and then tell the development control world that the whole archive belongs to your aunt in Bombay and you don't want any of them near it. Not a wsi in sight and cifa and its definition of a professional archaeologist (Loyd Grossman) can disappear never to be seen again.
Who do you think its aimed at? oh and it does not mention planning committees.
Published March 2015 just before an election (or was it put up post election). If you can read the introduction you find that its aimed at everybody and their relative accept dear old field archaeologist unless you think "Decision-taking for assets with archaeological interest." is anything to do with field archaeology rather than navel staring. Just look at the list of interventions they put in before doing an evaluation although to give it some due it has not mentioned heritage statement.
This is how I would write it. Dear field archaeologist get to the client before they go anywhere near a planning application. Blast a bloody great inexpensive evaluation trench right across the site ask the developer to give you the finds and then tell the development control world that the whole archive belongs to your aunt in Bombay and you don't want any of them near it. Not a wsi in sight and cifa and its definition of a professional archaeologist (Loyd Grossman) can disappear never to be seen again.
Quote:No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a written scheme of investigation (WSI) has been [submitted to and] approved by the local planning authority in writing.I have got one of these at the moment and whats really stupid about the wording is that the only thing that a field archaeologist can do when development takes place is a watching brief but my local mounties think that it is an excuse to do an assessment but which should have been done like para128 says to inform the decision, preapplication. They say wsi so much they have convinced themselves that it is an intervention in its self. The other really stupide thing about it is that why would I need any form of approval by local planning authority to do an evaluation. Surely evaluations have cifa standards, what does the local authority have to do with reiterating cifa evaluation standards in a wsi standard? And theres more agreement in writing for what? Theres no contract to breach and if it is its in the clients name. I am losing the plot.
Who do you think its aimed at? oh and it does not mention planning committees.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist