10th August 2015, 11:15 AM
That's a remarkably unhelpful attitude you've got there Marc. Also wrong headed, as your interpretation of p128 is way off. If there's to be a HIA (inc a DBA) or an evaluation, it's the Local Planning Authority, advised by their archaeological officer , who will be the ones asking for it. It really isn't for the applicant, or their agent, to do one unilaterally and present it to the LPA without first ascertaining what's required.
Further to that, the WSI is supposed to provide your client and the LPA with a written and agreed scope of works, so that they know exactly what's needed and so that they don't do more than is necessary or proportionate. Your input as an archaeologist is required because the typical applicant will not have the expertise to write one themselves. You seem to forget that you're only in the system at all because your client needs you to act on their behalf. You should therefore be making sure that your client is appropriately represented, and that includes negotiating with the LPA and, crucially, any archaeological adviser the LPA chooses to employ.
Further to that, the WSI is supposed to provide your client and the LPA with a written and agreed scope of works, so that they know exactly what's needed and so that they don't do more than is necessary or proportionate. Your input as an archaeologist is required because the typical applicant will not have the expertise to write one themselves. You seem to forget that you're only in the system at all because your client needs you to act on their behalf. You should therefore be making sure that your client is appropriately represented, and that includes negotiating with the LPA and, crucially, any archaeological adviser the LPA chooses to employ.