15th November 2009, 08:01 PM
It's interesting that EH think it unworkable for those reasons. Most of the same reasons that a sensible detectorist overcomes every day. I could easily organise the site/permission, the FLO and the archaeologist. Finds would only be collected from the ploughsoil (as usual) and ownership would be subject to landowner agreement as usual. The treasure act is the treasure act, what's unworkable about that? Are they thinking because it's a scheduled site that landowner and finder should perhaps surrender any claim to the state? I guess more costs might be a concern. Wouldn't bother me as it's par for the course and I doubt it would bother others. Landowner might not like it though.
When I organised the GPS/PAS recording days we did it on council land. This made things easier as to the ownership of finds.
I actually detected a scheduled site last week with archaeologists- even got paid. I believe the derogation delayed it a bit but it still went through ok.
When I organised the GPS/PAS recording days we did it on council land. This made things easier as to the ownership of finds.
I actually detected a scheduled site last week with archaeologists- even got paid. I believe the derogation delayed it a bit but it still went through ok.