15th February 2007, 02:43 PM
Posted by Unit of 1:
Quite a few of your posts read like it's the latter, and if so that is a shame - I hope that I am misinterpreting.
On the substance of your point, none of the information posted on this thread actually suggests that the lack of evaluation is down to the consultant; seems more like a combination of the curator and the contractor to me.
You will note that all of the consultants posting on this thread, including myself, have said that there should have been more evaluation and more mitigation excavation.
On your points about ownership and compensation, the known presence or absence of a barrow would make absolutely no difference to the valuation for CPO purposes. Had he known about it in advance, I am quite sure that the farmer would have viewed the barrow as a liability rather than a "rare and valuable asset".
On your comments about the Council, Troll hasn't told us if it was a local highway (County Council job usually, planning permission required) or a trunk road (Highways Agency, no planning application, authorised by central government).
On your comments about sycophancy, you are making pointlessly offensive assumptions without actually having any information on which to base them. If you are going to join these debates, please try to be a bit more constructive.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:Consultants and no evaluation trenches- made their money again that day and the diggers didntSo what is your primary concern Mr Unit - doing the right thing by the archaeology or maximising the opportunities for field units to make money?
Quite a few of your posts read like it's the latter, and if so that is a shame - I hope that I am misinterpreting.
On the substance of your point, none of the information posted on this thread actually suggests that the lack of evaluation is down to the consultant; seems more like a combination of the curator and the contractor to me.
You will note that all of the consultants posting on this thread, including myself, have said that there should have been more evaluation and more mitigation excavation.
On your points about ownership and compensation, the known presence or absence of a barrow would make absolutely no difference to the valuation for CPO purposes. Had he known about it in advance, I am quite sure that the farmer would have viewed the barrow as a liability rather than a "rare and valuable asset".
On your comments about the Council, Troll hasn't told us if it was a local highway (County Council job usually, planning permission required) or a trunk road (Highways Agency, no planning application, authorised by central government).
On your comments about sycophancy, you are making pointlessly offensive assumptions without actually having any information on which to base them. If you are going to join these debates, please try to be a bit more constructive.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished