3rd November 2005, 11:54 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
Think it`s high time that PPG16 was filed in a very dark dungeon under the heading "oops". Seen plenty of extremely important sites hacked by muppets.PPG 16 only requires the developer to carry out the minimum required.Is this the legacy we are willing to leave for future generations? The rate at which development is carried out today would surely call for an extremely desperate overhaul of this current heritage ethic.PPG 16 has more loopeholes in it than Bliars propoganda. Whilst I concede that it was an improvement in its time-that was 25 years ago.Have said this time and time again-ppg 16 says "compromise" once. In practise, after countless "compromises", at the point of trowel-it`s barely recognisable.The bare,minimalist,shaved,overly compromised result is that the archaeology is shafted.For profit.
25 years? It was introduced in 1991. I reckon that is 14 years. I've worked either side of that watershed and have seen many changes. It's not perfect but our continental colleagues look on with envy. In my area whole periods now have archaeological representation - pre-PPG15/16 there were no Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Anglo-Saxon (settlement)sites. A return to pre-PPG times would decimate the archaeological profession, literally.