It is currently Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:34 pm

All times are UTC


Advert Banner asking for sponsorship



 Page 1 of 1 [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Worth an email but no joy.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 6:22 pm 
Registered User

Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:28 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Peterborough
Main Detector: Garrett XP Pro Int
Here is the reply from my local council regarding detecting on their land or woodland. It was decent of them to reply in such detail with some positives at the end... I guess it's back to the allotment for now.

#####################################################

There have been a few requests to metal detect on PCC land over the years and although each request is considered carefully, I have always advised against giving permission to detect unless the work is part of a formal programme of archaeological investigation.

Our own resources are almost entirely dedicated to recording archaeological sites and retrieving remains that are going to be damaged and destroyed by development, quarrying, etc. We work on planned programmes of archaeological investigation in vulnerable areas and have a limited ability to respond to unexpected discoveries, such as the accidental exposure of human remains and significant artefacts.

Any archaeological remains beneath the surface are likely to be relatively well preserved and there is no obvious reason why they should be disturbed at this time. In the event that important remains were exposed by metal detecting on this land, we would have to carry out further exploratory archaeological excavations in order to properly record the context of the find, to retrieve all the relevant material, and to make sure that the remains were not vulnerable to unauthorised excavations. The responsibility and expense for this work would fall on PCC.

Apart from the health and safety, insurance, and ownership issues that you identify, there are a number of unavoidable consequences to using a metal detector on relatively open public land. One of these is that other, less responsible, people notice. There are significant problems with unauthorised and irresponsible metal detecting in this region and across the country, some of which takes place at night without any regard for damage to heritage or property.

There are a number of metal detector users in this area who detect responsibly on private, typically cultivated, land, with the relevant landowner’s and tenant’s permission. Peterborough Museum is supportive of metal detector users who wish to report their finds. We participate in the Portable Antiquities Scheme (www.finds.org.uk) and can offer a recording and identification service. We have a display in the Museum dedicated to local metal detector discoveries.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Worth an email but no joy.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:27 am 
UKDN Supporter - Silver
UKDN Supporter - Silver

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:00 pm
Posts: 1709
Location: right here right now
Main Detector: deus
I think that, as the vast majority of people die in bed, that beds should indeed be banned as they are statistically dangerous.
Also, there are a number of people out there who deliberately rob banks. Perhaps banks should be closed to the public, as it would clearly be in the public interest.
Or I could be mad as a hatter. :g5:


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Worth an email but no joy.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:03 am 
UKDN Supporter - Bronze
UKDN Supporter - Bronze
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:51 pm
Posts: 896
Location: Maidstone
Main Detector: Rock me Amadeus
I saw a post up here sometime back about a court case between a detectorist and his local council. Basically the guy searched "common" ground run by the council without permission and found a gold ring. The council took him to court for ownership of the ring but lost the case. The council then appealed the case to the High Court. 3 judges concluded that being " common" ground the public had a right to pursue leisure activities which would include metal detecting unless the said council had a specific bylaw prohibiting detecting. This bylaw in order to be valid had to be registered with the Home Office. This particular council had no such bylaw in place so the guy could detect there without specific permission to do so. But, and it's a big BUT anything found belonged solely to the council. They won their case and the ring was returned to them.
So no registered bylaw you can detect you just can't keep anything you find :g40:



_________________
PAS Click Here UKDFD Click Here

"Tectin's like a box a chocolates.........ye never know whatcha gonna git"
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 1 [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

phpBB skin developed by: John Olson
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Portal by phpBB3 Portal © phpBB Türkiye