8th June 2004, 09:34 PM
I take the point that in some areas land and house values are very low.
I stick by comment on PR (having spent the afternoon with the communication director of one of my clients in my experience 99% of developers do not want publicity.
The idea that archaeology can help with contamination issues is that it cannot. Our insurances do not allow for it.
Similarly historical flood data is no use - the nature of run off has changed and again our insurances donot allow us to give advice on flooding.
The nature of previous foundations and voids etc is the province of engineers and again we are not insured to do this.
We have to accept it we are are rarely useful to developers.
Peter Wardle
(Who has advised on all of these things in the last week as I had training in engineering geology, hydology, chemistry etc!)
I stick by comment on PR (having spent the afternoon with the communication director of one of my clients in my experience 99% of developers do not want publicity.
The idea that archaeology can help with contamination issues is that it cannot. Our insurances do not allow for it.
Similarly historical flood data is no use - the nature of run off has changed and again our insurances donot allow us to give advice on flooding.
The nature of previous foundations and voids etc is the province of engineers and again we are not insured to do this.
We have to accept it we are are rarely useful to developers.
Peter Wardle
(Who has advised on all of these things in the last week as I had training in engineering geology, hydology, chemistry etc!)