15th February 2007, 05:06 PM
Unitof1
Please reread my earlier posting regarding evaluation - I said that if intrusive evaluation was not possible pre-determination due to access not being made available, then the site should have been flagged up for advance evaluation as soon as the CPOs were through. This is not a consultant's attempt to avoid evaluation and reduce the amount of work carried out by field archaeologists, rather it is a reponse to the situation whereby the evaluation cannot be carried out at the optimum design stage due to access being denied.
If you know of a legal mechanism that allows access for archaeological works to be enforced against the landowner's wishes, then please let me know as it would make my life much easier on a number of current schemes and would provide much work for field archaeologists.
Beamo
Please reread my earlier posting regarding evaluation - I said that if intrusive evaluation was not possible pre-determination due to access not being made available, then the site should have been flagged up for advance evaluation as soon as the CPOs were through. This is not a consultant's attempt to avoid evaluation and reduce the amount of work carried out by field archaeologists, rather it is a reponse to the situation whereby the evaluation cannot be carried out at the optimum design stage due to access being denied.
If you know of a legal mechanism that allows access for archaeological works to be enforced against the landowner's wishes, then please let me know as it would make my life much easier on a number of current schemes and would provide much work for field archaeologists.
Beamo