| Author | More balance required? |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 10-06-2016 at 20:02
Quote:
| I think it's the model you proffered. Is that better? |
|
I suppose so David: It's the sort of model that is used by our government and many others. It is a long term trend which has gradually been refined through Brundtland, Stern and similar policy developments. The argument to treat archaeology in the same way as other disciplines has been going on for a short time by comparison (the first time I saw it formally noted was in a City of London review of archaeology dating back to the late '90's).
If you're interested in how that sort of model (for comparing policies) works, the Stern Review (especially the Appendices) gives a very good explanation.
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 12308
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-07-2016 at 09:56
From the CBA Local Heritage Engagement team
The Queen’s speech: Grassroots response & petition
On the morning of 18 May, some people (including me) were watching the Queen’s speech. I noted several points of interest for the sector, and followed up by reading the scant detail provided in the morning’s Government briefing on the legislative agenda which the speech outlined.
At the CBA, through our advocacy networks, we knew that we could expect a Bill to enable the ratification of the Hague Convention (Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1954) and had heard that we were likely to get another planning bill – although no-one in the sector knew what it was to be about. As followers of LHEN will know, we are concerned by the direction of government planning reform, which we see as having significant negative effects on archaeology. We have been lobbying government over the Housing and Planning Act, and have been producing briefings to this effect for our members and supporters.
In the Queen’s speech, there was indeed a new planning bill: The Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill. On an initial reading, it appeared that there could indeed be an impact upon archaeology as the Bill proposed functional changes to the operation of pre-commencement planning conditions, which at present enable planning permissions to be made dependent upon the completion of archaeological excavation, recording, and analysis. These proposals were true to form, continuing the Government’s growth agenda by pushing the idea that the planning system is the biggest barrier to housebuilding (a claim the CBA disputes).
However, what happened next was unusual. A student – under the moniker of ‘Ginger Archaeology’ – started a petition.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/130783
By the time I woke up the next morning, the petition had 4,000 signatures. We had a conversation in the office: the petition was gathering huge momentum, it seemed likely that it would hit the 10,000 signature mark required to force Government to respond. Before the day was over, the Telegraph had reported that the Bill was to threaten to ‘sweep away’ archaeological protections and the Planning Minister, Brandon Lewis, had taken to Twitter to deny that archaeology was a target. People were getting genuinely engaged – they were getting angry and they wanted action. And still more and more were signing the petition.
The CBA and CIfA chose to remain unconnected to the petition, but to highlight its existence on social media. Behind the scenes the CBA wrote to the Minister and a meeting was arranged between officials from the Department of Communities and Local Government and sector representatives. The meeting enabled the sector to voice its concerns and press the government on a variety of planning reform proposals. A few days later the Government produced a conciliatory response to the petitions, which aimed to provide further assurances that archaeology was not a target of the reforms. By this point over 17,000 people had signed the petition.
The government’s response can be read here.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/130783
Two joint statements by CBA, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, and the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers can be read: (1) noting the initial reaction to the Queen's Speech
http://new.archaeologyuk.org/Content/downloads/4482_Joint%20CIfA%20CBA%20ALGAO%20statement%20on%20recent%20planning%20reform.pdf
and (2) responding to the Government petition response.
http://new.archaeologyuk.org/Content/downloads/4549_Joint%20CIfA%20CBA%20ALGAO%20statement%20on%20response%20to%20petition_FINAL.pdf
Momentum fading?
By this point, the huge energy was beginning to fade. This is, of course, inevitable. The process of bringing forward legislation takes many months. The process of lobbying government is slow and often boring to an outside observer. However, it is important to make sure that those who were engaged by the petition understand that there is plenty more that can be done.
The CBA want to capture some of this public passion to fuel a summer of campaigning for heritage and archaeology!
The EU Referendum
The implications of the vote made on the 23rd June to leave the European Union for the archaeology sector has still to be fully digested. The effects on local authorities, cultural heritage protection, funding sources and higher education will undoubtedly be profound. We will examine this issue further in the next E-bulletin, but please get in touch if you have any comments, questions or concerns which you would like to feature in the next bulletin.
http://new.archaeologyuk.org/local-heritage-engagement-network
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-07-2016 at 08:57
Some really interesting links Andy:
Quote:
| A few days later the Government produced a conciliatory response to the petitions, which aimed to provide further assurances that archaeology was not a target of the reforms. By this point over 17,000 people had signed the petition |
|
That's a great result and probably stems from this quote:
"In conclusion, the Government values the petition in highlighting the importance of archaeology and the historic environment as a material consideration in the planning process, and will continue to engage fully with the sector during the passage of the Bill and beyond."
There may be cynics who would point out that the phrase doesn't actually say that the department believes that the argument has any value and also confirms that they are carrying on regardless.
I would recommend anyone to take a look at the other links to documents produced by the CBA: These show both the depth of understanding that the lobby has towards current methods of assessing environmental value and, if looked at in detail, also illustrate the strength of the arguments that have been put forward to date.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-12-2016 at 17:40
Here's some secondary effects starting to kick in:
Bangor University closing archaeology course
A levels in archaeology being scrapped
There doesn't seem to be any resistance to this second wave. The A level one is being debated in Parliament [here].
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-04-2017 at 19:33
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/opinion/the-endangered-antiquities-act.html
The Opinion Pages, New York Times "The Endangered Antiquities Act"
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-11-2017 at 07:12
Here's one response to the relaxations introduced as part of Brexit:
Rejection of Amendment 67
The reasoning is probably that relaxation of obstacles to planning should allow the expansion of the construction sector.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
drolaf
Joined:
12-11-2015
Messages: 893
from west yorkshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-11-2017 at 05:47
Dear Roy
I’ve brought this up before too. Unless a site can be made into a tourist destination it is not valued? I have to say that north of the Humber the future looks bleak. Sites such as rare long barrows appear and quickly disappear. In Yorkshire at least, cash strapped local councils rubber stamp planning permission, with goodwill clauses for the builders to pseudo-fund local services such as a bus stop or roof for a village hall. It’s all very well spouting law, but out int sticks it’s the wild north-west and money talks. Further north it’s worse. People with a bit of clout might be able to get a new ‘neolithic’ village, or funding for the likes of Brodgar, but more usually, large global businesses don’t even reply to an unknown asking why they are demolishing a site without permission. The local planning dept just records the destruction. At some point we have to say that we have seen the evidence, recorded it, and now it is just dust.
The upside of development on expensive green belt as opposed to cheap stashed brown belt, is that we have to acknowledge that there are sites everywhere! If we conserved all of them we would be smothered in conservation sites. We have had to re-evaluate the size of the population in the neolithic and bronze age.
Also on the bright side, people love their local heritage and new technology of phone apps gives a means of recording sites and communicating evidence. The Megalithic portal is a good example of what can be done.
There are some great advantages to being ignored: local sites can remain in the psycho-social ownership of the locals, not taken over by tourism. We can enjoy our desolate hard to find places and they are ours. In this respect Stonehenge is a handy diversion and keeps people from destroying other sites by popularity. Some sites may never be visited and that is also important.
[ This message was edited by: drolaf on 2017-11-29 06:24 ]
Profile
Reply
|
drolaf
Joined:
12-11-2015
Messages: 893
from west yorkshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-11-2017 at 06:12
Hi jon re value of investigations--
‘ investigations of that past fifty years or so have, to date, resulted in very little new understanding.....in the last few decades there has been very little successful translation of that knowledge .... further investigation would have little or no social value ‘
On the contrary, the way the past is interpreted has changed dramatically in the last few decades, and this change is accelerating as new and young people join the merry band. A major change has been due to the sorts of people involved: from all walks of life and from cross disciplines such as genetics, acoustics, geology- not just an elite financially able to go to university in the 1970’s. Yes, the field is still semi-dominated by an old boy’s club of public schoolboys, but this is rapidly changing, and with it, a change in perception to a story which is probably more realistic and less reliant on elitist ideals. A crucial change has been the application of science to a field that originated in art history. We can all have an input into the zeitgeist of understanding, and this has a huge impact on how we live our lives in the present. I would say this is extremely socially valuable and worthwhile and is not just a ‘hobby for its own sake’.
Maybe you could go to more archaeology lectures, then you might be in more of a position to evaluate which sites are of (financial or otherwise) importance (at the moment-this constantly changes and evolves). universities do free open lectures, there are local and county groups who organise speakers. This Saturday i’m popping down the road for a talk by Alison Sheridan. cake biscuits and a few beers.
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-11-2017 at 15:13
Hi DrO
Quote:
| ‘ investigations of that past fifty years or so have, to date, resulted in very little new understanding.....in the last few decades there has been very little successful translation of that knowledge .... further investigation would have little or no social value ‘ |
|
Those are three partial quotes from two different posts. Two quotes are from different sentences in a post that compares contrasting views. Because the cropped pieces are out of context, it's difficult to know quite what's being flagging up DrO. Could you be a bit more specific?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
drolaf
Joined:
12-11-2015
Messages: 893
from west yorkshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-11-2017 at 03:07
oh sorry Jon, if that was confusing. i’ll just use one quote
‘ investigations of that past fifty years or so have, to date, resulted in very little new understanding.
same reply
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-11-2017 at 09:09
Aha. With you. The last bit of that quote was important:
It could be argued that understanding our past may serve a social purpose. However, it is not difficult to argue that archaeological investigations of that past fifty years or so have, to date, resulted in very little new understanding [of the type that would be perceived to add a social gain].
I'm already fairly convinced that the subject matter does have additional potential social value so I'm interested in how to quantify that in a manner that would be in line with Treasury methods (using the same methods that we in the construction and environmental sectors use to show value). There are methods of quantifying social value (for example the methods in Stern can be used to quantify risk in terms of economic value).
The impact of not making available accounted arguments is generally a reduction in funding (because other sectors do provide value arguments and everyone is competing for the same pool of money): Archaeology is indirectly funded on a very large scale (direct funding is small). Some of the potential impact was predictable. For example in page 1 of this thread, 16-02-2016
“Perhaps the big difference between the section and taxpayer segments is that section 106 agreements could be argued to protect major discoveries of currently unknown projects. However, it would not be that difficult to reduce the application of section 106 so that it has a more limited scope.”
The last sentence has just come to life in the form of the rejection of amendment 67. This could result in large scale redundancies in the archaeological sector if the next steps are taken to ease planning law (which is very likely). We'll see I guess?
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2017-11-30 09:10 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-08-2019 at 13:19
Looks like some research is starting up on this topic: "Value" is used as the main topic word in all three top priorities. There's a chance that this will lead to something that is useful in social-economic models:
https://historicengland.org.uk/research/support-and-collaboration/researchopportunities/
Profile
Email
Reply
|
|
