 |
 |
Thanks Nick, You wrote > I think this is the crux of the matter in terms of helping curators. And why the RTPI or whomever need to be involved. Technically, you are right, in practice... - well ask curators about issues relating to discharge of conditions, and also getting enforcement action taken when archaeological conditions aren't met. Unless a standard has the support of the wider planning community, then in those terms it will not serve its purpose. > That's very helpful. So any standard we develop should have, as a key criteria, visibility and acceptability to a planning professional as well as within the sector. That's a good point - tommorrow we'll look at different options for development and the strengths and weaknesses of each approach You also wrote > It would allow curators (and others) to judge if a report contains the essential information, but may not provide any further weight to getting a report updated if it doesn't. This is a wider issue than just a report standard, but it is relevant as it is part of the context in which a standard would operate. My concern here is that any standard becomes an extra thing for curators to deal with, when they are already struggling to keep up with work they have, but doesn't actually help them. The fact that it may then benefit researchers in that context is irrelevant, as from a curators point of view it is more work for no direct benefit. > Point taken. This needs to bring together the interests of all the sector, and any processes in which the standard operates need to be aware of the pressure son LA resources. Many thanks for your contributions, Best wishes Ed Standards and Guidelines manager English Heritage