Thanks for asking me to explain and thanks for assuming the news brief might
not be telling the whole story:
There is a chapter in the ACAO 25th anniversary publication which explains
in detail how our organisation works, this is the quick version.
NI Dept of the Environment is made up of Planning Service and Environment
and Heritage Service, the latter containing Environmental Protection(Air &
water Quality and all those complex inspectorates), Natural Heritage and
Built Heritage. DoE is an NI government department, although we have mostly
been under rule from Westminster, since 1973, as we are at the moment, and
it also acts as local government.
This means that my team is responsible for the built environment policies
and development control work, except for Listed Buildings, for which there
is a dedicated team of architects, and Conservation Areas, which are
presently looked after by Planning Service but are likely to come over to
us.
We have specific policies available in Planning Policy Statement 6:Planning
Archaeology and the Built Heritage, see at:
http://www.planningni.gov.uk/AreaPlans_Policy/PPS/pps6/pps6.pdf
This is a local variant of PPG15/16, sort of.
We also have a Strategic policy document for all of NI, and local plan
policies for the 26 local council areas into which NI is divided) see.
http://www.planningni.gov.uk/
Planning Service is currently re-working all the local Plans, and has been
given lots more staff for this work. We cannot get the extra staff needed
to work with them, which leaves me as the only archaeologist available to
work on landscape/townscape characterisation and policies for all these
plans. I am responsible for development control casework done by 5
archaeologists, of whom 4 are on temp contracts. They handle some 2,500
referrals, out of some 25,000 planning applications submitted in NI every a
year! Add in attendance at Public Inquiries and Planning Appeals and you
will see that, like you all, we never have time to be bored.
The SMR is a vintage/traditional 1973-8 paper record, supported by a quite
modest Access database (www.ehsni.gov.uk ) which acts as an index, and
not-quite-real-GIS mapping on 'Maps in Action'. We also have datasets for
Industrial/Maritime/Defence/Battlefields/Parks& gardens, because the
original SMR maps cannot take any more information. We have no problem
getting IT investment (just too little time to do the specs) so a new
all-singing and all-dancing sytem is being worked on. The present systems
are tended by 2 archaeologist/specialist staff, both on contract, who also
co-ordinate all the casework. Research for SMR enhancement is getting
neglected.
We work in much the same way as colleagues in local authorities in GB, but
we also do the planning-related work done by stat bodies, and we look after
everything from our earliest Mesolithic sites, through to cold war defence
heritage sites, taking in battlefields and parks/gardens on the way.
In any one day, a caseworker might agree a programme of works for excavation
of a site with no visible remains and then recommend refusal of planning
permission because of the adverse impact of a development proposal beside a
state care monument or to prevent destruction of a site of local importance
I know you said to spare the details behind the news story, but I reckon
they also serve to illustrate that my work is just like everyone else's.
A post-grad archaeology student constructed a complex scenario which made a
semi-ruined Quaker Meeting House, in his home town, the focus of mass
burials and location of several possibly medieval buildings, the latter
being identified by his probing. Local objectors added his 'evidence' to
their reasons for wanting planning permission refused. We wanted
evaluation, to investigate possible prehistoric evidence on the site.....
When the topsoil strip failed to reveal anything at all, the local
councillor associated with the objectors said they would not accept the
results because they did not accord with the interpretation by their local
expert (yes, the student) then he complained about the standard of the work
to the local paper, then it got picked up by a bigger paper, and, now people
all around the world are seeing the story!
Maybe I can get my press release out while I am on holiday, from today...
Happy Christmas to everyone!
Annie
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 18 December 2003 14:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Check_Subject
I have a question, which someone (Annie Given, perhaps?) might be able to
answer.
The report below was posted on the CBA news feed today. The actual case
obviously appears to be slightly contentious (although you can never tell
with newspaper reports!), I'm not after details of this. What it's made me
realise is that I have no idea how planning/development control/curatorial
archaeology is dealt with in NI. Does anyone feel inclined to enlighten me?
Thanks
Jim
+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
Jim McNeil, South Yorkshire Archaeology Service
Planning, Transport and Highways
Howden House, 1 Union Street, Sheffield, S1 2SH
Tel.: 0114 273 6428 Fax.: 0114 273 5002
Email: [log in to unmask]
+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
Archaeologists fail to find graveyard
Belfast Telegraph 18 December 2003
A TEAM of archaeologists has failed to unearth anything of significance at
an ancient site in Rathfriland which is the subject of a planning
application. The excavations were ordered by planning officials after
claims that the Newry Street site was a former Quaker graveyard and should
not be used for housing. The dig has been paid for by the proposed
developer.
Campaigners claim archaeologists only skimmed the surface and are adamant
there are graves at the spot.
The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be
disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the
addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email software
as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any responsibility
for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has been transmitted
over a public network. If you suspect that the message may have been
intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.
|