31st March 2015, 01:21 PM
This seems to be a very unusual situation - on most highway schemes it is virtually impossible to take in any land that is not actually required for the construction (aither as permanent or temoporary landtake). I can understand the archaeological interest in examining that part of the site that remains outside the scheme, but what does this have to do with NYCC? If this is a County Council highways scheme then the money will have probably come mainly from central government in one form or another and will have been made available only for the construction of the road and not for examination/protection of archaeological sites outside the scheme boundary. If new information has now come to light regarding the significance of the remaining part of the site then EH (or HE as it now is) can review a request for scheduling and act accordingly. Any compensation payment due to the landowner due to restrictions on land use would have to come from funds allocated for that purpose (agri-schemes, HLF?) and not from local authority highway budgets.
Beamo
Beamo