13th September 2008, 11:00 AM
"After all, the developer doesn't have to pay for geological 'research' after having boreholes sunk (and I'm sure there are research aims that could be achived by such work)."
True Redearth, but boreholes would go some way towards establishing the viability of the development, or the scale of work required for stabilisation - whether the job went ahead under its present plan in short. Stuff the developer has to know. Where-as the archaeology of the site, unless structurally significant, has nothing to do with the final development, and could be swept away in a morning with no discernable difference to the end development (with the exception of some notorius Indian burial sites*).
*See Poltergeist (Speilberg et al, 1982) and Pet Cemetary (King, 1989 ).
True Redearth, but boreholes would go some way towards establishing the viability of the development, or the scale of work required for stabilisation - whether the job went ahead under its present plan in short. Stuff the developer has to know. Where-as the archaeology of the site, unless structurally significant, has nothing to do with the final development, and could be swept away in a morning with no discernable difference to the end development (with the exception of some notorius Indian burial sites*).
*See Poltergeist (Speilberg et al, 1982) and Pet Cemetary (King, 1989 ).