Archaeology, Geology, Landscape and Archaeological Sites Listing Group Current Activities continued...

The third matter is the false sense of security that the creation of an insufficiently researched list of scheduled sites will generate. Beyond the presented list, there is no attempt to identify potentially sgnificant sites which have no specific archaeological link-the basis on which the proposed sites has been assembled. To give one example, the L'Hermitage development at Beaumont did not receive any archaeological investigation, would not have been incorporated into the present list and yet is a site of considerable archaeological potential given its situation on dry land above the marsh and below the steep slopes above.

The fourth issue concerns a deeply worryingly aspect of scheduling. Major sites such as Mont Orgueil Castle and La Hougue Bie have been significantly disturbed over the past two decades. What has happened to these-and it is not the purpose here to enter into the pros and cons- was sanctioned by qualified researchers. Few would likely question the outcome at La Hougue Bie which has brought the Neolithic monument to a state comparable with many other first class sites on the continent and in Britain. At Mont Orgueil Castle, however, there has been considerable disagreement on what was proposed and what has been done. In the realm of prehistoric archaeology and associated geology, it is still strongly felt that much was not done that should have been done to elucidate the early story of Neolithic and other early peoples on such a prominent and important landmark. Now all this is sealed in beneath construction works and not accessible. These two instances represent the competing views of so-called experts. Resolution of such matters can only bring any sort of satisfaction in the future if a greater range of experts are used to make the planning decisions and then are subsequently allowed to inspect ongoing works.

A final matter is not dissimilar to the fourth in that it concerns competing claims for the same space or monument. Those managing an SSI scheduled for one reason may come into conflict with representatives of another discipline. An example of this seems to be occurring near the Pinnacle within the Les Landes SSI where one group of managers want to excavate a pond for wild life in an area which is part of an archaeological landscape of both actual and potential importance. This example highlights the dangers posed by scheduling in one sense without consideration of the implications for others.

All the above matters have been incorporated into a comment document passed to the Planning Department and the Minister earlier this autumn. Wherever possible, suggestions have been made offering practical solutions to problems such as those outlined above.