18th February 2009, 10:34 AM
I always thought that this condition was reasonable because the developer only had to allow access to the nominated archaeologist - not pay the nominated archaeologist.
Does the southern county referred to above's condition requires the developer to pay one of the archaeologists on the list? If so, I think that is a different scenario than the access condition reffered to in Circular 11/95.
Does the southern county referred to above's condition requires the developer to pay one of the archaeologists on the list? If so, I think that is a different scenario than the access condition reffered to in Circular 11/95.