6th November 2009, 12:32 PM
BRahn - they're not miles away in meaning last time I looked - my mistake. I'd try a dictionary rather than stimulants. It is up to curators to get this stuff into briefs and written schemes and make their approval of such schemes dependent on its inclusion. 
Windbag - That may be the case, and I did point that out myself. Remember folks - this is Policy (supported by guidance) - by it's very nature aspirational and intended to promote best practice - it's not dogma. As with PPG16 there will be exceptions. I can think of lots of sites where public engagement would be suitable during and after the fieldwork. Clearly it is going to be on a 'Case by case' basis - these are not rules. :0
David - we already have a system to determine the potential archaeological interest of development sites. It's called evaluation - and when it happens early on in the development process all kinds of things are possible.
Anyone have any other thoughts on the PPS. e.g. maybe it should be called 'Climate Change, Planning and Heritage'? :face-rain:
Windbag - That may be the case, and I did point that out myself. Remember folks - this is Policy (supported by guidance) - by it's very nature aspirational and intended to promote best practice - it's not dogma. As with PPG16 there will be exceptions. I can think of lots of sites where public engagement would be suitable during and after the fieldwork. Clearly it is going to be on a 'Case by case' basis - these are not rules. :0
David - we already have a system to determine the potential archaeological interest of development sites. It's called evaluation - and when it happens early on in the development process all kinds of things are possible.
Anyone have any other thoughts on the PPS. e.g. maybe it should be called 'Climate Change, Planning and Heritage'? :face-rain:
[INDENT]Shiny assed county mounty, office lurker, coffee junkie and facebook scanner[/INDENT]