21st January 2005, 12:46 PM
Err, but BAJR, re. para 1 - isn't that what you're supposed to be doing anyway??? If you're not then it is no surprise that there is a problem. Welcome to the construction and development industry!
Obviously another problem is going to be underfunding/understaffing of the county mounties. Planning departments proper (if you see what I mean) have the problem and very few authorities have dedicated enforcement officers. Unless it's a listed building, it is is highly unlikely that anyone will pop round to look at a building that is going/has gone up. As you say, the archaeology is likely to be a bit of a poor relation. As I said, I see the only solution is rigorous inspection and enforcement, more akin to Building Control than Planning. Forget the IFA, it's nothibng to do with them. The GDC doesn't check people's teeth on the way out of the dentist to see if he's done it ok, the RIBA doesn't check architect's drawings.
The root of the thing I suspect is that the fundemental concept of commercial archaoelogy is flawed. But that's another story!
Obviously another problem is going to be underfunding/understaffing of the county mounties. Planning departments proper (if you see what I mean) have the problem and very few authorities have dedicated enforcement officers. Unless it's a listed building, it is is highly unlikely that anyone will pop round to look at a building that is going/has gone up. As you say, the archaeology is likely to be a bit of a poor relation. As I said, I see the only solution is rigorous inspection and enforcement, more akin to Building Control than Planning. Forget the IFA, it's nothibng to do with them. The GDC doesn't check people's teeth on the way out of the dentist to see if he's done it ok, the RIBA doesn't check architect's drawings.
The root of the thing I suspect is that the fundemental concept of commercial archaoelogy is flawed. But that's another story!