Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Interesting Thursday am problem
#31
Hi guys

I think we are back to something I raised earlier - how do we deal with archive deposition for those projects where the gap between fieldwork and publication / archive deposition is measured in years rather than weeks.

As someone has already commented, one good policy is not to recommend discharge of the condition until the archive is deposited, or there is clear written agreement to deposit following suitable analysis and publication.

My point would be this - if there is a written agreement to deposit, and discharge has been achieved on that basis - what comeback can there by the planning authority if the developer / landowner reneges on the agreement and property has already been disposed of (sold) on the basis that all conditions were adequately discharged.

An additional complication arises where the applicant / developer is not the landowner. The developer may well have agreed to deposit the artefacts, but as they do not have legal title in the first place then the writtten agreement is worthless.


Beamo
Reply
#32
A further complication may arise where the curator has no archive depository to recommend, usually trusting upon the excavator to hold onto the finds/paper archive ad infinitum. I can think of at least 2 English counties and 1 metropolitan area/unitary authority where this is the case.

Surely most planning conditions are written off following the production of an interim statement on the archaeology of a given site. This is many cases is not much more than a version of the old school staple essay 'What I did during my last summer holiday'.

Which is not the same as a full publication or even the commencement of any form of analysis/synthesis of the results of the archaeological work. Surely there would be as huge a backlog of unfulfilled planning conditions as there are unpublished archaeological sites if this wasn't the case.


Reply
#33
Kevin

Re. your first point -this issue (and a few other relevant ones) was covered to some extent in an article in the Autumn 2005 edition (No. 5:face-thinks: of The Archaeologist - the IFA glossy mag.


Beamo
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Fresh Water C14 dates - a problem looms BAJR 4 3,725 26th March 2013, 01:42 PM
Last Post: P Prentice
  Thursday 4th July, Worcester: Remote sensing from small unmanned aerial systems John Wells 1 1,718 25th March 2013, 04:32 PM
Last Post: John Wells
  Interesting dating technique Jack 26 14,128 24th April 2012, 02:01 PM
Last Post: Unitof1
  Huston we have a problem Bodger51 19 9,033 22nd November 2011, 11:18 PM
Last Post: Wax
  With all this interesting talk on the forum about sampling strategies, letters to the diggingthedirt 8 5,852 1st June 2011, 03:54 PM
Last Post: P Prentice
  Now VATs an interesting subject Unitof1 38 16,086 3rd July 2009, 04:10 PM
Last Post: Unitof1
  Interesting article in planning magazine mattockman 3 2,802 8th May 2009, 03:25 PM
Last Post: Ilikediggingunderwater
  Interesting 10 days a year consultancy BAJR Host 4 3,982 14th January 2009, 05:52 PM
Last Post: kevin wooldridge
  Visa renewal problem - the new point system paleobones 17 9,054 10th September 2008, 01:31 PM
Last Post: Gilraen
  Minor Problem with BAJR BAJR Host 6 6,331 1st July 2008, 01:34 PM
Last Post: oldgirl

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)