10th September 2009, 02:26 PM
david Wrote:probably... I have not asked them. I would guess that a developer would feel the same if told, you can't build there, its got a bat living in that tree.
as I said - saying... oh, they told me to do it does not create a strong idea of why you are doing it...
I also think we are getting confused between public support and public funding.
recently I advised a person who was about to evaluate a sensitive site beside a village... you could do well to communicate with the villagers..
the reply (perhaps in jest) was "fk em... I'll just give them the line about doing a job for the client, nothing to do with me... and if they don't like it... fk em!"
Public support may not be needed in times of plenty but sure helps to make an essentially non-essential product essential - if that makes sense- and public funded work is what I and others do with community archaeology or in local groups (which is very different from commercial archaeology - but a damn good training ground for prospective commercial archaeologists to start, seeing as there is little training in unis and the same in commercial companies )
The difference with bats and badgers is that they are legally protected (I believe) so the developer would have to deal with it, whether they like it or not.
At the end of the day a lot of things that happen on developments happen just because some planner says they should - types of roofing and windows, size and scale of development, even the use of the development. These things presumably not then go through a sub-phase of hand-wringing, they are just done.
I can understand someone not wanting to consult the local villagers about their evaluation (although the wording is a little unfortunate) - who would have the time to deal with the potential outcomes? What if the villagers form a 'save our archaeology' group? A bit difficult to cost for on what is likely to already be a tight budget. Of course approaching them first might help, but only might...
I also don't think there is much difference between public support and public funding. If the public don't support it then the excuses for funding are weakened, in every source.
Vulpes Wrote:A canny bit of PR by Headland, nothing more...
Indeed, and good for them. But still some good points made. I assume you're not suggesting that the point about additional value and quality of service/work being worth the additional cost is invalid?