Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Amendment 67
Log In to post a reply

3 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
26 posts

Re: Amendment 67
Nov 29, 2017, 00:01
A fair point:/ , although 'polluter' here means more 'disturber', IE of archaeological remains, heritage landscapes etc.

As I say (and from many years involvement with commercial archaeology), it is a system that is far from prefect.

The real worry is that without current baseline priniples, there might be a move to push costs back on local authorities (eek), or have new hardly-at-all-accountable agency/consultancies (themselves commercial business) dictate the value of archaeology and heritage.

I view this as part of a sustained attack on publicly accountable Planning Systems and Local Councils - County Archaeological & Museum Services have all but disappeared, especially in the last 10 years, and many are essentially on their last legs (with a few exceptions) - even the Archaeological Planners are reduced to skeleton staff, making efficient and thorougher over-site of standards and planning briefs increasingly difficult

Non-publicly accountable 'environmental' consultancies are rapidly filling and would very happy to take over, the roles of publicly employed Planners and Council Officials.

In the present climate, I think a change to current polluter pays principle can only be very bad for British Archaeology as a whole, despite the principles own weaknesses as a way to manage our shared Heritage.

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index