> 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.


my own views, and not necessarily those of my line manager or employers.