27th August 2008, 02:49 PM
1Man,
While I agree with your sentiments, as they are only your opinion, I should draw a line between the differences of âdeveloper fundedâ and âpolluter paysâ archaeology. Currently, archaeological works will be paid for when a developer is required by planning consent. No one has to complete an application form for funding from the developer to justify the archaeological works. The extent and nature of the works should be directed through negotiation by the archaeological development control officer and these normally reflect the nature of the impact, or pollution, of the development.
With regard to high profile and environmentally sensitive projects such as gas pipelines, I would suggest it is in the interests of the industry to be seen to be giving as many benefits as possible. Furthermore, given the history of archaeological excavation and reporting and some of the notorious mains contractors, surely it is also in the interests of the pipeline industry to clean their act up.
Tmsarch,
I disagree with you on all your points for the reasons Iâve already explained.
I will make a final point and ask as to whether or not someone actually went out to site to check if the engineersâ advice geological information and any SMR data was correct? Did the county archaeologists ask that this was done?
S
While I agree with your sentiments, as they are only your opinion, I should draw a line between the differences of âdeveloper fundedâ and âpolluter paysâ archaeology. Currently, archaeological works will be paid for when a developer is required by planning consent. No one has to complete an application form for funding from the developer to justify the archaeological works. The extent and nature of the works should be directed through negotiation by the archaeological development control officer and these normally reflect the nature of the impact, or pollution, of the development.
With regard to high profile and environmentally sensitive projects such as gas pipelines, I would suggest it is in the interests of the industry to be seen to be giving as many benefits as possible. Furthermore, given the history of archaeological excavation and reporting and some of the notorious mains contractors, surely it is also in the interests of the pipeline industry to clean their act up.
Tmsarch,
I disagree with you on all your points for the reasons Iâve already explained.
I will make a final point and ask as to whether or not someone actually went out to site to check if the engineersâ advice geological information and any SMR data was correct? Did the county archaeologists ask that this was done?
S