31st May 2006, 01:02 PM
Quote:quoteo you not think that jumping straight in is against PPG16?
Yes I do. But all sorts of the ways we are forced to do things these days seem to be. Is it not currently under review anyway, and govt. is probably trying to find ways like this to speed up the planning process?
As for preservation in-situ, I've ranted on enough about that. I'm struggling to think of the kind of archaeology in a rural site that would absolutely have to be preserved in-situ. The concept only ever seems to be applied to save developer's money, not just on the grounds of the importance of the archaeology. Cemeteries can be and are cleared archaeologically. They cost a bit, but not much compared with other aspects of development. This would simply be factored into the decision on the viability of the development as these things always are, but with more information to go on.
Lastly I naively assume that planning departments DO stand behind their archaeologists, but experience is teaching me otherwise.