27th July 2011, 02:48 PM
I am a little surprised that the IFA would allow itself to be quoted as affirming the draft without first consulting its members or council? Its a bit preumpatious to throw their weight behind it without first seeing broadly what its members that form the majoriyt of the profession consider its pros and cons
Also with the fact that government money was spent on PPS5 which a) only came out last year and b) was broadly accepted as a improvement on the PPG 14 and 15, why didnt they include it word for word and save all the debate from the archaeological community and money it cost to relook at it in these austere times?!
Also with the fact that government money was spent on PPS5 which a) only came out last year and b) was broadly accepted as a improvement on the PPG 14 and 15, why didnt they include it word for word and save all the debate from the archaeological community and money it cost to relook at it in these austere times?!