19th July 2011, 09:28 AM
Quote:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]how could the planner be confident that the assessment that there was no need for further work was correct if he or she doesn't have access to their own archaeological advice? They'd basically be taking it on trust that the archaeologist who prepared the report hadn't been unduly influenced by the depths of the developer's pockets to give advice that minimises the extent of any archaeological issue.
Because when the application goes into a period of public consultation http://www.durham.gov.uk/pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=855
Other commercial archaeologists (more reputable), have the opportunity to object to the proposed mitigation as does the public on ?archaeological? grounds. What conciloor fenland did not appreciate although maybe his voting public did is that the ?political? system is the arbiter of what is locally significant outside of a scheduled ancient monument. What I would like to see is that the majority of the archaeology is undertaken pre application, pre construction site, pre ICE contact environments
?we don?t needs smrs for commercial work. They should be part of museums if they want them (which they don?t seem to). Why dont they call for a transfer of the SMR to THE BIG MUSEUM or why doesnt the BIG MUSEUM insist that they have the SMR
Reason: your past is my past