2nd November 2005, 04:21 PM
Hmmm...
Er, excuse me but this is exactly how the system does work now. An independent archaeological company does the work, the county archaeologist monitors it and the developer pays for it. Anything that is found is 'reported immediately' to the county archaeologist, who is an 'appropriate person' who decides what the response will be. Monitoring visits by the county archaeologist on most projects I am involved with take place every week. A solution is arrived at which preserves archaeology either in situ or by record, at the cost of the developer, but still enabling the development (and the economic, social etc. benefits which accrue from development) to occur.
Quote:quote:I'd like to see the system changed so the work was done by an independent archaeological company of some kind, under the direction/working for the county mounty but paid for by the developer so that anything of national importance found would be reported immediately to the appropriate person not hidden in paperwork until it was too late to preserve in-situ if necessary. This way no-one could say the information was not given to them in time to follow PPG16 guidelines.
Er, excuse me but this is exactly how the system does work now. An independent archaeological company does the work, the county archaeologist monitors it and the developer pays for it. Anything that is found is 'reported immediately' to the county archaeologist, who is an 'appropriate person' who decides what the response will be. Monitoring visits by the county archaeologist on most projects I am involved with take place every week. A solution is arrived at which preserves archaeology either in situ or by record, at the cost of the developer, but still enabling the development (and the economic, social etc. benefits which accrue from development) to occur.