1st November 2007, 09:53 AM
I tend to do the same sort of thing as HB, although there are lots of exceptions - developments work in different ways so it's not always possible to pursue the same process all the time, and there isn't a "one size fits all" approach. Some large sites - especially minerals extraction ones - last for years. Bits and pieces have to be signed off as and when, with post-ex and publication a long way off, so I guess I'd be doing the same as Vulpes and ML there. It's a question of getting the wording right in any letters sent, and explicitly specifying that the overall archaeological conditions [u]should not </u>be discharged.
To go back to Trowelhead's original question - my heart sinks when I'm told that the post-ex for any site is to be put out to tender. I've [u]never </u>had a satisfactory result from this process, and it involves a lot of pointless work and wasted time to get to the same end result.
To go back to Trowelhead's original question - my heart sinks when I'm told that the post-ex for any site is to be put out to tender. I've [u]never </u>had a satisfactory result from this process, and it involves a lot of pointless work and wasted time to get to the same end result.