3rd August 2006, 07:43 PM
Kevin,
The greyness is in the consultation (with curators) stage not with the management/consultants. There should be an aim to be in agreement with mitigation and methodology before submission of the EIA/ES so as to avoid objections which may hinder the project. So, the greyness is in the degree that both parties choose to deal with the archaeology; deals are often struck.
In my own experience, the treatment of archaeology is generally very good and on a par with PPG16 requirements. Most of individuals involved tend to uphold good standards. There are, of course, the exceptions that elude the process, falling into another grey area where the curator can not do anything about various bad decisions/practices and the DTI don't reply to complaints/don't want to know.
I was meant to be working....
The greyness is in the consultation (with curators) stage not with the management/consultants. There should be an aim to be in agreement with mitigation and methodology before submission of the EIA/ES so as to avoid objections which may hinder the project. So, the greyness is in the degree that both parties choose to deal with the archaeology; deals are often struck.
In my own experience, the treatment of archaeology is generally very good and on a par with PPG16 requirements. Most of individuals involved tend to uphold good standards. There are, of course, the exceptions that elude the process, falling into another grey area where the curator can not do anything about various bad decisions/practices and the DTI don't reply to complaints/don't want to know.
I was meant to be working....