>Supply of Information from an SMR without accompanying advice from an LA
curatorial advisor has always in my experience been a "dangerous" thing.
Getting a developer in to discuss implications of their proposals at an
early stage is best encouraged by access to the SMR through/with  the
interpretation of the curator on specific case by case basis.

I'd certainly agree with the latter point. Without a competent
archaeological consultant, who was aware of the implications within the
local context [which, as a rule, SMRs are in the BEST position to provide]
the information is relatively valueless, except in the broadest possible
usage. However, under the ruling, as I see it, 'advice' is a different
matter from data, and its provision is not covered by the directive.
Presumably, if the directive were to be passed with the ammendments as they
stand, we would have to provide some guidance as to how the data could be
used. Not that this is without fault - RCAHMS have a note on their online
NMR which says that the data is 'not suitable for land management' purposes,
but it continues to be used in that fashion by folk who wish to avoid
charges from SMRs - however, if their schemes then come unstuck when it
reaches the local planning office its their hard luck for not reading the
small print.


>Could you also guarantee that once a full data set has been handed over on
request, and a  development scheme with mitigation been developed by a
contractor then submitted that you the curator wont then find extra
information not yet on the digital SMR and which may radically change
matters....would this create an irate developer who has wasted money on
consultants fees or even a legal challenge that you didn't supply all
information in advance? How often will you have to provide updates of the
digital information from the SMR? In some areas of intense development
activity this could prove a significant burden on an SMR officers time.


The legal challenge would not stand if the information was not
available/known to the SMR at the time of provision. SMRs are an evolving
entity, and users of the datasets *should* be made aware of this. For
instance, within our authority, Forest Enterprise were provided with a 'full
set' of GIS point data by the RCAHMS. However, they still consult with us,
aware that our spatial information is better (in relation to their needs),
and that we have pertinent local knowledge. This situation has taken some
time to cultivate, but it now works to the benefit of both parties.

The arrangements for updates would be the responsibility of the users of the
datasets, though I assume that any SMR discovering new information which is
pertinent to an ongoing/proposed development would make that information
available to the concerned parties.



>The role of a curator is to collect, care for and interpret their material
not just to gather and disperse it. The current danger is that we will lose
that crucial interpretation role and end up being glorified librarians (no
offence intended to librarians).

I have no wish to be a librarian, however glorified (again, no offence). I
quite agree that the interpretation role is vital, as is the constant
improving of the datasets we curate.  My use of the phrase 'just curators'
was not to imply any denigration of what we do, or to suggest that we should
just gather and disperse data, but rather that we should not become
possessive about those datasets.

Andrew


Andrew Nicholson
SMR Project Officer
Planning and Environment
Dumfries and Galloway Council
Tel: 01387 260154
Fax: 01387 260149
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.dumgal.gov.uk
This e-mail is communicated in confidence.  It is intended for the recipient

only and may not be disclosed further without the express
consent of the sender.