7th June 2005, 06:47 PM
I totally agree, and once again we get back to the deeply flawed legal framework under which we work. I personally, and professionally, benefit from this flawed system, but I'm unapologetic. I'd hate all archaeology to be "preserved" in-situ, I want to dig it and add to our stock of knowledge, and the only way I get to is within PPG15 an 16.
As regards Thornborough and any other contentious site( I also worked on "Seahenge" a few years ago) I feel that there's not much point criticising the developers or the contracted archaeologists, or even the planning archaeologists, who are all working within a crappy system. The responsible parties are the government department and their lapdog quango's who won't change a system that allows quarrying of nationally important sites. I'm deeply worried about government claims that it is going to solve the housing crisis among others, by relaxing planning laws. Hmmm...? Which planning restriction is going to bear the brunt of that then? We may soon be looking back at the PPG16 era as "the golden age of UK archaeology".
As regards Thornborough and any other contentious site( I also worked on "Seahenge" a few years ago) I feel that there's not much point criticising the developers or the contracted archaeologists, or even the planning archaeologists, who are all working within a crappy system. The responsible parties are the government department and their lapdog quango's who won't change a system that allows quarrying of nationally important sites. I'm deeply worried about government claims that it is going to solve the housing crisis among others, by relaxing planning laws. Hmmm...? Which planning restriction is going to bear the brunt of that then? We may soon be looking back at the PPG16 era as "the golden age of UK archaeology".