24th February 2006, 12:13 PM
Hi Merc
I obviously wouldn't know, but it sounds as though in your example they did the archaeology bit for one planning permission, but actually implemented another scheme. The planners probably assumed that the archaeology was done and dusted, having recieved a report or agreed a preservation strategy.
I think this sort of thing happens more often than we might think, and it's tricky to track. You could of course try to get the whole site dug at the outset arguing that construction impacts are always greater than anticipated - for example if they decide to switch pile types to vibrocompacted ones or re-route services instead of using old runs - but wou would probably hit a brick wall in terms of reasonableness. But in essence the archaeology agreed for one planning permission will not necessarily be automatically transfered to a different scheme, if the 1st one is not implemented.
Anyway, it's Friday and I'm going to go and prepare myself for the curling - I hope you are too!
!
I obviously wouldn't know, but it sounds as though in your example they did the archaeology bit for one planning permission, but actually implemented another scheme. The planners probably assumed that the archaeology was done and dusted, having recieved a report or agreed a preservation strategy.
I think this sort of thing happens more often than we might think, and it's tricky to track. You could of course try to get the whole site dug at the outset arguing that construction impacts are always greater than anticipated - for example if they decide to switch pile types to vibrocompacted ones or re-route services instead of using old runs - but wou would probably hit a brick wall in terms of reasonableness. But in essence the archaeology agreed for one planning permission will not necessarily be automatically transfered to a different scheme, if the 1st one is not implemented.
Anyway, it's Friday and I'm going to go and prepare myself for the curling - I hope you are too!
!