14th October 2012, 03:00 PM
Hmmm. No warnings on my browser, but not sure if it is ok to copy & paste here without permission...
The gist of his blog is that some "shelved" road schemes are being resurrected, and that there is a question about wanting to preserve the evidence in-situ versus getting jobs for the troops. No actual scheme locations are mentioned (sadly), and his main point is that commercial archaeology is just another sub-contractor to the construction industry so what is good for the builders is financially good for diggers. However, he does set it as "...and now discuss" because obviously there will be folks on both sides of the argument!
The real (and unwritten) issue is whether we trust the whole current planning system to properly investigate and recover the full evidence from the path of such big schemes, given the stories we all can tell of flawed WSIs, poorly designed briefs, inadequate evaluations, etc. Maybe we need to fully strip & clean back the whole footprint of the road corridor before the Planning Condition can be discharged?... :face-stir:
The gist of his blog is that some "shelved" road schemes are being resurrected, and that there is a question about wanting to preserve the evidence in-situ versus getting jobs for the troops. No actual scheme locations are mentioned (sadly), and his main point is that commercial archaeology is just another sub-contractor to the construction industry so what is good for the builders is financially good for diggers. However, he does set it as "...and now discuss" because obviously there will be folks on both sides of the argument!
The real (and unwritten) issue is whether we trust the whole current planning system to properly investigate and recover the full evidence from the path of such big schemes, given the stories we all can tell of flawed WSIs, poorly designed briefs, inadequate evaluations, etc. Maybe we need to fully strip & clean back the whole footprint of the road corridor before the Planning Condition can be discharged?... :face-stir: