29th January 2007, 03:56 PM
Developer-funding for archaeology is very explicitly not a subsidy. It is something they need to pay for in order to be able to develop legally - just like complying with Building Regulations or preventing their construction site from polluting local watercourses.
No-one forces archaeological works on a developer; they always have the option of not developing that site. If they want to do something that would destroy archaeological remains, then it is their responsibility to ensure that they do the necessary mitigation work.
A subsidy would come into play if the Government were to pay for work that only needs doing because of the actions of a third party (this used to be the case before PPG16). In those circumstances, the developer would effectively be in receipt of a subsidy to mitigate damage that he/she has decided to cause.
It is all based on the old 'polluter pays' principle.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
No-one forces archaeological works on a developer; they always have the option of not developing that site. If they want to do something that would destroy archaeological remains, then it is their responsibility to ensure that they do the necessary mitigation work.
A subsidy would come into play if the Government were to pay for work that only needs doing because of the actions of a third party (this used to be the case before PPG16). In those circumstances, the developer would effectively be in receipt of a subsidy to mitigate damage that he/she has decided to cause.
It is all based on the old 'polluter pays' principle.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished