22nd May 2009, 03:58 PM
Under the polluter pays principle I believe that the amount of money (resources) a developer should be legally obliged to commit to archaeology should be a percentage of their project budget just as architects, groundworks etc. We and they must get over the fact that archaeology is an unfair burden on their profits. It should be no more of a burden than any other aspect of their project. It should also have a provision that the amount set aside for archaeology may increase if something exceptional is found (and should probably be covered by their insurance). Sensible and/or ideal developers already factor most of these things in. They don't like it, but they do it.
If the polluter can't pay, then it should mean he cannot afford the project, not just that he cannot afford the archaeology. The archaeology must be seen as a non-negotiable part of the project.
I agree that using a socialist approach to fund archaeology is a good idea, but don't know wheter this should be a levy/tax on a project, or that deveopers should be legislatively obliged to commit a percetage of their budget to archaeological investigation.
I hope that made sense
I can't believe I just agreed to a socialist approach...its friday... i'm tired... hope you all have a happy bank holiday
If the polluter can't pay, then it should mean he cannot afford the project, not just that he cannot afford the archaeology. The archaeology must be seen as a non-negotiable part of the project.
I agree that using a socialist approach to fund archaeology is a good idea, but don't know wheter this should be a levy/tax on a project, or that deveopers should be legislatively obliged to commit a percetage of their budget to archaeological investigation.
I hope that made sense
I can't believe I just agreed to a socialist approach...its friday... i'm tired... hope you all have a happy bank holiday