Archaeology in the Fens-serious implications for military sites

[M.Rimmer]

I have just seen this via the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology

 

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/fens_bunny_hugger_row_latest_now_the_archaeologists_hit_back_at_council_leader_1_931924 http://www.facebook.com/#!/home.php?sk=group_163161013749820

 

Obviously this has serious implications for all kinds of archaeological sites in the Fens,including military sites.

 

Matt.

Edited June 25, 2011 by M.Rimmer
Add second link

[daz76]

I've just read the article and Mr Melton seems to be taking the law into his own hands with this. There are numerous new developments in the Fens which have popped up in recent years. I grew up there and the Archeologists are absolutely right to be worried as there is so much buried there. Obviously it has been a prime military area for the UK and US armed forces. Thanks for highlighting this as I will now keep an eye out for news. It's a shame when someone in a elected position such as Mr Melton can't respond to a serious email from someone voicing their concerns with out resulting to childishness :-(

 

It's all about making money at the end of the day I suppose...

[N.O.S.]

Well, if you can get past some of the perhaps not-best-chosen humour in the speech, then what a breath of fresh air this is. Whatever side of the fence you happen to fall you should applaud this chap for having the courage to take the stand that he has.

 

I'm afraid the kick-back manifesting itself here is the inevitable result of the way planning legislation swung far too far towards prioritising archaeology in development matters.

 

OK I'm not sure about the legality of dropping the Section 106 requirements dealing with archaeology at District level, but remember that in any case the larger footprint development planning applications - e.g. minerals extraction - are dealt with at County level, with the District Council acting a consultee.

 

Certainly in some cases it became a power struggle between sometimes greedy devlopers and Local Authority archaeologists who had become a bit light-headed with their newly found powers - with the Local Authorities at times happy to give the archaeologists a push to centre stage whenever they found it difficult to find 'legitimate' reasons to refuse applications which didn't suit the politics of local government. The legislated enforcement of direct funding by developers of all archaeological work only served to pour petrol onto the flames, and inevitably came to be regarded at times as a potentially blank cheque source of funding.

 

I can assure you in all sincerity that in some cases it had become quite ridiculous, and if only I could tell you about the latest ongoing farce in my neck of the woods you would in all probability agree.

 

No, we got it wrong first time round with archaeological planning legislation. If only we had struck the right balance when this legislation was introduced circa 1993 then we would not be faced with the inevitable swing back the other way which seems to have now started - will we learn anything from it I wonder?

 

:readpaper:

Edited June 25, 2011 by N.O.S.

[daz76]

Agreed N.O.S. There is a need to approach this with an open mind and common sense, but I still believe any archeological site needs to be investigated before being bulldozed. Although not affecting military archeology, I know for a fact that in some large scale sites where extraction occurs any discovery of archeology is cleared out of the way to avoid shutting down the plant and losing money. Not just human archeology but paleontology too. I think the idea being mooted of allowing an archeological appraisal of a site after foundations have been dug as a bit of a token gesture.

I would like to see what happens with the discussion on this. No doubt the EDP will report on it. Perhaps the archeologists have had to much power in the past, but it would be a shame to see the balance swing too far the other way.

[Rick W]

Thanks for that Matt. Archaeology is all too developer led these days without much attention being "paid" to the actual archaeology. Trouble is that most of the developer ( note most) funded archaeology is only concerned with having a quick look over a site, a quick report before building goes ahead. Its not in the developers interest to find anything significant and Im sure that filters down the line, if you get my meaning. Not all consultancys are in the pocket of the developers and hopefully we begin to see a shift to more community led archaeology.

http://www.claspweb.org.uk/

 

(Something I am involved in)

[N.O.S.]

I have to say Rick that is not my experience - far from it. I would think it is more accurate to say that development has become more archaeology regulated than archaeology being developer led.

 

I'm sure we could however agree that without development there would be no archaeology, since development pays the costs. So many potentially interesting sites, where no development is ever envisaged, will never be investigated. And that's where I'm guessing your community led approach is maybe looking to fill the gaps?

 

I maintain that site-specific funding is dreadfully inefficient in that developers can get caught with huge and sometimes terminal costs for what might turn out to be archaeology of little significance. I would also suggest that the system causes money to be spent on less-than-ideal investigations simply because the opportunity only exists to obtain funding from developers for those sites being developed. There are of course exceptions.

 

No, the system we have is not the best solution. I maintain that archaeology is more of a pure science, and should not be compromised by limitations of develoment funding - equally I do not believe that development should be unduly restricted by an overiding desire to preserve all archaeological remains just for the sake of it.

 

I would advocate instead that all development should attract an affordable archaeological levy, which can then be pooled (perhaps on a regional basis?) and utilised by local archaeologists to investigate the most important sites - perhaps some of those sites where development may never take place. Shame we don't live in an ideal world....

[Stormin]

 

I would advocate instead that all development should attract an affordable archaeological levy, which can then be pooled (perhaps on a regional basis?) and utilised by local archaeologists to investigate the most important sites - perhaps some of those sites where development may never take place. Shame we don't live in an ideal world....

 

Far too sensible an idea to be adopted by those in power, too many axes to grind, too many party politics points to be scored and too many pockets to be lined.

[N.O.S.]

Far too sensible an idea to be adopted by those in power, too many axes to grind, too many party politics points to be scored and too many pockets to be lined.

 

:banana: Well said!

[Turret_Monster]

While I agree that archaeology can become a problem for developers for all kinds of reasons, however, there are things that can be done to avoid any more ‘Archaeologists kibosh development!’ headlines.

 

If developers commissioned a desk-based assessment of their site before applying for planning permission. That way they can (usually) get a pretty accurate picture of what the archaeological risks are for a relatively minimal outlay. If it appears that there may be something archaeological there, then they should approach the local authority archaeological advisor and agree up front what (if anything) needs to done to prove presence or absence. If they then commission an investigation of the site and find nothing that should be it. If they do find something, then they should go back to the council’s advisor to agree what needs to be done to deal with it.

 

The problems arise when developers start doing what they think should be done, independently of any kind of advice. To a developer, archaeology (like all the other equally expensive bits of inconvenient planning legislation) is all about managing risk, which lots of them seem to think they can do by ignoring it until it’s too late.

 

As an aside, I’m not sure what Mr Melton was thinking when he made his speech but he has yet to explain how Cambridgeshire proposes to circumvent European, National and Local legislation and guidance on heritage matters.