28th June 2005, 04:32 PM
How do you get absolutely certain? Is that not what evals are for? Do you get slated for negative results on Evals you have imposed? Madness!
An eval should be the absolute minimum on site where anything might be encountered. Once you've got evaluation info you can then make a proper decision about conditions attached to a development. A WB won't do it.
Why is it up to you to decide if archaeology is prohibitively expensive on a site and if so, not then allow the development? As I see it PPG16 requires you to see that archaeology is preserved in-situ or by record. Let market forces decide the rest! If the developer wants the development enough he will pay for the archaeological condition. If not, no development, and no problem for you.
It sounds like the reality is that you are in opposition to the planning department, and have to ridiculously justify your every decision that affects them. The same situation applies where I work, and it is the number one reason why archaeology is done badly or not at all.
What you are achieving when you apply a WB to a site where archaeology is likely, is avoiding your responsibility (presumably because you don't want to have a showdown with the planning dept) and passing it to the poor sod on the ground (me)who then has to decide whether to stop a project when the archaeology turns up. Such a stoppage costs far more than a preliminary eval and proper condition.
This situation makes me very very angry.
An eval should be the absolute minimum on site where anything might be encountered. Once you've got evaluation info you can then make a proper decision about conditions attached to a development. A WB won't do it.
Why is it up to you to decide if archaeology is prohibitively expensive on a site and if so, not then allow the development? As I see it PPG16 requires you to see that archaeology is preserved in-situ or by record. Let market forces decide the rest! If the developer wants the development enough he will pay for the archaeological condition. If not, no development, and no problem for you.
It sounds like the reality is that you are in opposition to the planning department, and have to ridiculously justify your every decision that affects them. The same situation applies where I work, and it is the number one reason why archaeology is done badly or not at all.
What you are achieving when you apply a WB to a site where archaeology is likely, is avoiding your responsibility (presumably because you don't want to have a showdown with the planning dept) and passing it to the poor sod on the ground (me)who then has to decide whether to stop a project when the archaeology turns up. Such a stoppage costs far more than a preliminary eval and proper condition.
This situation makes me very very angry.