|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Rotherwas Ribbon » The Rotherwas serpent |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Robert Carr 84 posts |
Edited Jul 19, 2007, 18:47
Jul 19, 2007, 07:19
|
||
|
Rooting around the web I came across Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and planning, the document that should be informing the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, English Heritage and Herefordshire Council when coming to their challenging decision over the Rotherwas Ribbon. http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144057 It is certainly an interesting read when you apply it directly against the real-world case of the Ribbon. In para 27: As stated in paragraph 8, where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ ie, a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or which would have a significant impact on the setting of visible remains. I do hope this clear-cut guidance for a presumption in favour is taken into account by the decision makers. Also para 31 (Discovery of Archaeological Remains during Development): Developers may wish to consider insuring themselves against the risk of a substantial loss while safeguarding the interest of historic remains unexpectedly discovered on the site. Well that's Herefordshire Council (and McAlpine) sorted financially regarding any change of plan to the road. They are insured I hope?
|
|||
Pilgrim 597 posts |
Jul 19, 2007, 09:32
|
||
|
Robert Carr wrote: Rooting around the web I came across Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and planning, the document that should be informing the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, English Heritage and Herefordshire Council when coming to their challenging decision over the Rotherwas Ribbon. http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144057 It is certainly an interesting read when you apply it directly against the real-world case of the Ribbon. In para 27: As stated in paragraph 8, where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ ie, a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or which would have a significant impact on the setting of visible remains. I do hope this clear-cut guidance for a presumption in favour is taken into account by the decision makers. Interesting stuff, Robert Carr. Sadly, I think you'll find this is used to support the burying of the Ribbon beneath the road - using preventative measures such as sand packing etc. They'll say they were acting with due consideration, of course. Robert Carr wrote: Also para 31 (Discovery of Archaeological Remains during Development): Developers may wish to consider insuring themselves against the risk of a substantial loss while safeguarding the interest of historic remains unexpectedly discovered on the site. Well that's Herefordshire Council (and McAlpine) sorted financially regarding any changes of plan to the road. They are insured I hope? Hmmmm.....don't hold your breath. Peace Pilgrim X
|
|||
|
Robert Carr 84 posts |
Edited Jul 19, 2007, 18:18
Jul 19, 2007, 18:15
|
||
|
Pilgrim wrote: Sadly, I think you'll find this is used to support the burying of the Ribbon beneath the road... Yes Pilgrim I can see that interpretation. Ah well... I do wonder about the proposed technique for the 'burial'. Will it work? Are there any TMA members who have built a road recently or know about these things who can advise? Pilgrim wrote: Robert Carr wrote: They are insured I hope? Hmmmm.....don't hold your breath. You're not suggesting... now that would be a boo boo!
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jul 19, 2007, 18:29
|
||
This whole conundrum, of developers uncovering sites then allowing archeaos in to have a look then the site gets covered /trashed as opposed to nothing said and the sites gets lost or in exceptional cases the work is cancelled , is based on a fine line of trust between the parties . This case may tip the balance , regardless it can only get more interesting . The new government home building initiative will produce lots of similar cases .
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jul 20, 2007, 07:54
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: This whole conundrum, of developers uncovering sites then allowing archeaos in to have a look then the site gets covered /trashed as opposed to nothing said and the sites gets lost or in exceptional cases the work is cancelled , is based on a fine line of trust between the parties . This case may tip the balance , regardless it can only get more interesting . The new government home building initiative will produce lots of similar cases . An ongoing project that suddenly uncovers goodies means they also run the risk of having their project stopped and taken over. Yes we all hate development and the owners etc, but they do discover a lot of stuff that would never otherwise be dug up. I assume the government has some sort of compensation scheme set up so if a project is stopped in its tracks someone pays the wages?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 20, 2007, 08:02
|
||
|
I assume the government has some sort of compensation scheme set up so if a project is stopped in its tracks someone pays the wages? I don't think so. Not sure about the arrangements for a road builder like McAlpine and whether their contract entitles them to contingency payments from their client, but in a case like Tarmac where they might have been prevented from collecting millions of quids worth of gravel its a case of tough, its a commercial risk they have to bear. Amd why not? Permission to develop is a very valuable free gift from society and if society chooses to change its mind so be it.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jul 20, 2007, 09:26
|
||
|
slumpystones wrote: tiompan wrote: This whole conundrum, of developers uncovering sites then allowing archeaos in to have a look then the site gets covered /trashed as opposed to nothing said and the sites gets lost or in exceptional cases the work is cancelled , is based on a fine line of trust between the parties . This case may tip the balance , regardless it can only get more interesting . The new government home building initiative will produce lots of similar cases . An ongoing project that suddenly uncovers goodies means they also run the risk of having their project stopped and taken over. Yes we all hate development and the owners etc, but they do discover a lot of stuff that would never otherwise be dug up. I assume the government has some sort of compensation scheme set up so if a project is stopped in its tracks someone pays the wages? As Richard Bradley's recent book has pointed out , We can hardly keep up with developer funded finds and info on new sites .At the moment the balance appears to be working but we could easily return to a point when it would be easier for them to turn a blind eye and fail to report finds .
|
|||
Moz 24 posts |
Jul 20, 2007, 11:36
|
||
|
Don't know if this helps but: http://pininthemap.com/013c3dc80ca04c4d8 (I got this indirectly from NigelSwift)
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 20, 2007, 11:51
|
||
Did you? Well I got it from Juamie and gave it to Gordon...!
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jul 20, 2007, 11:56
|
||
|
Moz wrote: Don't know if this helps but: http://pininthemap.com/013c3dc80ca04c4d8 (I got this indirectly from NigelSwift) Great ,thanks a lot Moz .
|
| Pages: 13 – [ Previous | 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
