Is archaeology using interns and is this and acceptable practice?

[P Prentice]

Actually what I was trying to express was nothing to do with lists of approved contractors, but the lists issued by planning offices of applications received, applications pending and applications approved. It strikes me that an archaeologist or archaeological undertaking who is relying on this source to secure work is several steps off the pace of the rest of the herd. As has been accepted practice over the past 20 years through PPG16 and more so now with PPS5 and perhaps even more so with NPPF, by the time a development gets onto these lists, the archaeological component of any development should at least have been addressed, if not fully effected, and contractors, consultants etc in place. Where is the cost effectiveness of trying to secure work at this point in the process......?

....as my friend Trowelfodder has often reminded me, once you fall off the back of the herd you become easy prey for all kinds of predators. I was suggesting that making effective contact with those higher up in the food chain i.e consultants, at an earlier stage in the 'feeding frenzy' process could be a much more rewarding long term strategy.

i get rung up on a regular basis by folk wanting me to sort out a planning condition that they were not expecting. often small builders, but often large engineering firms who never had a consultant and dont want one because they know they will end up paying twice for the same work