29th July 2010, 11:08 AM
thanks everyone! so basically there is still so much confusion over the new guidelines that things havent really changed in that respect?
I have to say though that the inclusion of requirements to present archaeology to the public seems like a great idea to me, as long as its put through in such a way that the clients have little or no choice in the matter. I know that clients will aften accept the lowest tender as they feel no real need for archaeological works to be undertaken, however i worked for a very large construction company on a road scheme as public liaison for them and i was told by all the qs's that realistically they would accpet higher archaeological costs if all prices rose. Particularly as they often see even large archaeological projects as costing 'a drop in the ocean' compared to everything else. so perhaps it will be easier than we all think to encourage more public outreach as long as it is a condition of the planning consent or if everyone agrees to tender it in?
I have to say though that the inclusion of requirements to present archaeology to the public seems like a great idea to me, as long as its put through in such a way that the clients have little or no choice in the matter. I know that clients will aften accept the lowest tender as they feel no real need for archaeological works to be undertaken, however i worked for a very large construction company on a road scheme as public liaison for them and i was told by all the qs's that realistically they would accpet higher archaeological costs if all prices rose. Particularly as they often see even large archaeological projects as costing 'a drop in the ocean' compared to everything else. so perhaps it will be easier than we all think to encourage more public outreach as long as it is a condition of the planning consent or if everyone agrees to tender it in?