|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » Highways England Consultation - A303/Stonehenge |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 08, 2017, 03:44
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: My guess is that you will. Not sure it's quite as dirty a game as you imagine, I wish I believed that but I take the introduction of Advice No 2 "Works other than those of a minor nature are likely to be acceptable only where they would be in the best long-term interests of the conservation of the remains or there are other important planning justifications” as the Government reserving the right to ride roughshod over protected landscapes if it feels like it by citing "important planning justifications". Sounds pretty much like "never mind the Rule of Law, we'll rule by decree when we feel like it and these Guidelines are for show only".
|
|||
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 08, 2017, 16:32
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: I wish I believed that but I take the introduction of Advice No 2 "Works other than those of a minor nature are likely to be acceptable only where they would be in the best long-term...... Aye.. see your point of view. There's been an argument going on about this for a couple of decades now. A difficulty for the archaeological lobby (as opposed to the more general 'heritage') is that there hasn't been much work done on the value to taxpayers of preserve undiscovered remains ('Heritage' is almost a world away): S106 is an indirect form of societal taxation. So the recent planning relaxations could be argued to be a consequence of the somewhat philistine perception that, as a general rule, there are few benefits to archaeology. But now that the 'archaeo 21' team have lodged an expert consortium-type argument for the Neolithic period using semi-value arguments, they are likely to get questioned on value and benefit (to try to bring their objections into the terms of reference of the consultation). So Stonehenge is a huge opportunity to reverse the tide. They must have thought this through in a lot of detail before submitting (if they didn't have enough evidence, it could well set a far worse precedent than if they had done nothing at all). So what comes next from them is likely to be seriously interesting. There are other submissions, but these aren't personal representations from the acknowledged world experts.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 09, 2017, 07:53
|
||
|
"A difficulty for the archaeological lobby (as opposed to the more general 'heritage') is that there hasn't been much work done on the value to taxpayers of preserve undiscovered remains" An impossible calculation. But so is a calculation of the value of known remains, which is what much of this thread is about.
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 09, 2017, 11:31
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: An impossible calculation. But so is a calculation of the value of known remains, which is what much of this thread is about. Perhaps. If you accept that there is no valuation method (in the same way that it is difficult to value someone's life), then a way around this is to use an 'auction' method of valuation; where people are asked to put a value on what it is worth to them. One method of doing that is called the "Contingent Valuation Assessment"[CVA]. In the absence of any proof that something has any definable value, this can be used to get a perceived value that can be assessed against options to do (or not do) something. This is the method that has been used by Highways. It tends to overestimate value but can also underestimate it. Because either a) archaeology is impossible to value or b) insufficient work has been done to value it properly, the method used has been "CVA". It's just an opinion Nigel, but arguing that it's impossible to value archaeology probably won't help the case of the 21 archaeologists (in essence the case that they would need to develop is that archaeology is more valuable than Highways have estimated). From what I can see, the CVA method used would be independently assessed as having been very generous to the archaeology.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 09, 2017, 12:40
|
||
Please don't propose applying the Contingent Valuation method to archaeology and heritage. It's a popular popularity poll and it means more people will value Jedward over Stonehenge and all will be lost!
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 09, 2017, 16:10
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Please don't propose applying the Contingent Valuation method to archaeology and heritage. It's a popular popularity poll and it means more people will value Jedward over Stonehenge and all will be lost! Not me Nigel. It's what Highways have already done (it's in the consultation documents). If it hadn't been for the CVA, the whole scheme would have been labelled as having low (or negative) value: The options with value that would have remained would have been either cut and cover or widening of the existing surface route.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 09, 2017, 16:34
|
||
|
I think we're talking at cross purposes. Of course they can present cost benefit analyses to compare different tunnel or road options with each other but those can't be used to set against heritage value or the loss thereof to produce a meaningful judgement. There is no system for doing such a thing. How would you decide which would damage humanity most, banning cheese or pandas?! Please tell me before we continue! ;)
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 09, 2017, 18:31
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: How would you decide which would damage humanity most, banning cheese or pandas?! Please tell me before we continue! ;) I'd ban the pandas from Stonehenge. Don't ban the cheese. I hope English Heritage don't consider banning cheese. Highways have already valued it using the CVA method Nigel. What you or I would like to see is almost irrelevant because it has already been done. Personally, I think that this particular monument will prove, at some time in the future, to be far more valuable than has been assumed by the CVA; perhaps even "invaluable". However, that belief is based on an unproven (geocentric) hypothesis, which would allow a much higher 'monetized' valuation if proven true. But, as the archaeos have pointed out in their submission, these things take decades and only months or years remain.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 09, 2017, 19:44
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: Highways have already valued it using the CVA method News to me! What value did they put on breaching the World Heritage Convention and depriving the next 100 generations of a clear view of the Winter solstice sunset?!
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Mar 16, 2017, 18:31
|
||
|
New summary blog: https://blog.stonehenge-stone-circle.co.uk/2017/03/16/the-knotty-problem-of-the-a303-and-stonehenge/
|
| Pages: 21 – [ Previous | 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 21 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
