8th November 2005, 05:23 PM
It?s not really my place to say whether 2% is sufficient, but this is a generally accepted amount of work for most evaluation purposes. Given the nature of the topography and the extent of what would have been marshy ground, I?d say it was enough. Even if archaeology had existed further north, in all likelihood this would have been removed by subsequent peat extraction over hundreds of years. In the event of archaeology being encountered north of the proposed transition zone, I trust the integrity of those carrying out the archaeological work to see that it was properly dealt with.
If you want to see the minutes, they?re available at:
http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsult...ymins.html
If you want to see the minutes, they?re available at:
http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsult...ymins.html