10th August 2008, 03:11 PM
Surely PPG16 empahasises that the majority of archaeological research/field evaluation will be carried out at a pre-application stage, with the results of the evaluation/DBA accompanying the planning application.
If I were to apportion 'blame' in the scenario as you paint it, it would be largely with the development control archaeologist who is obviously unaware of the pre-application process and the potential for refusing an application when made, if the developer does not accompany it with appropriate documentation i.e in this instance a comprehensive record of archaeological deposits destroyed during the 'boxing' of the basements.
There must also be some blame attached to the 'local archaeological firm'. I think I would be unhappy carrying out a watching brief for such a firm, without the developer having defined in advance an intervention strategy, if the so-called watching brief uncovered unexpected evidence (which in such an ill-defined scenario would appear to be [u]any </u> evidence). Secondly 'local firm' aint gonna be doing a lot to endear themselves to the 'local curator' if they pursue their work with such a laissez-faire attitude and may find that 'a favour' for this cowboy could end costing them local work in the future.
I would also be interested to know if said developer has an archaeological consultant providing advice....
If I were to apportion 'blame' in the scenario as you paint it, it would be largely with the development control archaeologist who is obviously unaware of the pre-application process and the potential for refusing an application when made, if the developer does not accompany it with appropriate documentation i.e in this instance a comprehensive record of archaeological deposits destroyed during the 'boxing' of the basements.
There must also be some blame attached to the 'local archaeological firm'. I think I would be unhappy carrying out a watching brief for such a firm, without the developer having defined in advance an intervention strategy, if the so-called watching brief uncovered unexpected evidence (which in such an ill-defined scenario would appear to be [u]any </u> evidence). Secondly 'local firm' aint gonna be doing a lot to endear themselves to the 'local curator' if they pursue their work with such a laissez-faire attitude and may find that 'a favour' for this cowboy could end costing them local work in the future.
I would also be interested to know if said developer has an archaeological consultant providing advice....