> John Carman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I think John McCarthy possibly has not realised that Britain > does have a > kind-of SHPO equivalent in County Archaeological Officers (by > whatever name > called), part of whose job it is to oversee the application > of development > control as it relates to archaeology. I think the word 'oversee' might be taking it too far. Their job is to advise and make recommendations to the Councils' Planning Committees in the sphere of impacts on the historic environment. The Committees can, and do sometimes, disregard the professional advice from archaeologists, biodiversity officers, landscape architects and the rest, and approve planning applications anyway. As ever, archaeology is only one factor in a potential development (as John pointed out), and one that is frequently outweighed by local economic needs. Local Government Archaeological Officers also have to consider whether the conditions they put on a development - and this would include sampling strategies for instance, are too onerous on the developer. If they are seen to be putting an unreasonable burden on the developer the application may well go through to an enquiry. LGAO's have to be able to justify their conditions to 'ordinary' folk, whose priorities are sometimes different from those who contribute to this list. Having set down conditions for a development, most LGAO's do attempt to monitor work undertaken in their areas, and I am aware of some who have insisted on further work being undertaken, even when the contracting unit said they had used up all the time they had budgeted for, on the grounds that the excavation was not satisfactorily completed. Andrew my own views, and not necessarily those of my line manager or employers.