1st July 2014, 05:04 PM
Quote: If they have an approved scheme (digging a hole) and you agree to investigate/sterilise the archaeology in that hole, then why is it such a problem if afterwards they fill the hole with a turd-drain? You could point out that there will be further impact from the water, but there are proper channels for that sort of complaint. Yes and almost always on single residential sites I give the soak always a miss. I ring the curator and say I have stood around here for a few days, have a 80% sample of whats down to be excavated please let me drop the soakaways as they might not do them for another month or two and knowing full well that they will not go where the archaetectural drafts man says they might go.
I don't think that's the same as a soakaways by a church. I don't think eh should even consider a soakaway within ten metres of a church purely on the grounds of archaeological preservation let alone putting a septic tank in. What amazes me with English heritage is that they love all this heritage assets receptor inter visibility but are totally blind to the heritage consequences of taking a dump in a Christian church both physicaly but also spirituality and are willing to invent a sewage system that has no certification that I can find. Trench arch is a con set up for fake archaeologists. Dont give approval by being the mitigation for it.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist