26th May 2009, 12:13 PM
I am just going to flag up preservation in situ. If a developer is developing a site where the costs of the archaeology are likely to make it unprofitable then there is much they can do to save cash by designing a scheme to preserve remains in situ and reduce the extent of excavation. Obviously there are very few sites where this would be the case.
If a developer is too stupid to undertake pre-determination evaluations or introduce archaeological information to inform their design process then why the hell should any money be provided from any other pot to dig them out of the financial hole of their own creation. Archaeological work represents a minimal financial cost to the vast majority of developments. What it does represent is a delay and a potential reorganisation of a timetable if the developer has not followed policy and ppg16 and instigated a pre-determination evaluation prior to obtaining their consent.
If a developer is too stupid to undertake pre-determination evaluations or introduce archaeological information to inform their design process then why the hell should any money be provided from any other pot to dig them out of the financial hole of their own creation. Archaeological work represents a minimal financial cost to the vast majority of developments. What it does represent is a delay and a potential reorganisation of a timetable if the developer has not followed policy and ppg16 and instigated a pre-determination evaluation prior to obtaining their consent.