3rd December 2007, 02:24 PM
Posted by vulpes, 29 Nov:
I can agree your second point (which is entirely consistent with my original post of 29 Nov), but not your first point.
The purpose of an EIA is not to generate briefs, specs and monitoring work - although all of those are very useful. Also, EIA consultants can (and do) do all of these things themselves (often giving them more time and effort than is available to the curator), although they would always prefer to have the curator's input as a starting point.
The EIA would only lack a point if it failed to identify and assess the effect of the proposal on archaeology and to identify appropriate mitigation works. The lack of proper curatorial advice can reduce the likelihood of these things happening, or can make them less effective. Nevertheless, the EIA consultant has strong incentives (outlined in my previous post) to make sure they do happen. I have been the EIA consultant in a similar position, and I came under no pressure to water-down my assessment.
Where the lack of a curator is the biggest threat is in planning applications that do not require EIA - in those circumstances there is no 'backstop' to prevent the archaeological impact slipping through un-noticed.
Other threats occur where a planning authority fails to impose suitable planning conditions, even where the EIA has identified a need for them. This can happen even where there is a curator (I've seen it happen), partly because the authority does not always ask or take the curator's advice.
In relation to legal/PI challenges - you are right, they are not a substitute for a curator; but they are an incentive to do the EIA right even if there is no curator in place.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:I'm sorry but EIAs do lack a point if they lead to or include evaluation or mitigation and there is no curator in place to set briefs, approve specs, monitor the work etc ... The possibility of a legal challenge or public enquiry is no substitute for planning authorities having access to the advice of an impartial, experienced and knowledgable curator.
I can agree your second point (which is entirely consistent with my original post of 29 Nov), but not your first point.
The purpose of an EIA is not to generate briefs, specs and monitoring work - although all of those are very useful. Also, EIA consultants can (and do) do all of these things themselves (often giving them more time and effort than is available to the curator), although they would always prefer to have the curator's input as a starting point.
The EIA would only lack a point if it failed to identify and assess the effect of the proposal on archaeology and to identify appropriate mitigation works. The lack of proper curatorial advice can reduce the likelihood of these things happening, or can make them less effective. Nevertheless, the EIA consultant has strong incentives (outlined in my previous post) to make sure they do happen. I have been the EIA consultant in a similar position, and I came under no pressure to water-down my assessment.
Where the lack of a curator is the biggest threat is in planning applications that do not require EIA - in those circumstances there is no 'backstop' to prevent the archaeological impact slipping through un-noticed.
Other threats occur where a planning authority fails to impose suitable planning conditions, even where the EIA has identified a need for them. This can happen even where there is a curator (I've seen it happen), partly because the authority does not always ask or take the curator's advice.
In relation to legal/PI challenges - you are right, they are not a substitute for a curator; but they are an incentive to do the EIA right even if there is no curator in place.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished