22nd July 2010, 04:47 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:
bit like those hospital managers that they are getting rid of.
I don’t see why everybody should quote on the same basis
The excavators should have the specific questions
The developer should understand the threat
Who asked you to trust them-are there some units you trust- what does that mean
I know that you know what I am talking about because you have read PPS. It seems to say that the developer should come to that table with an archaeological statement.
barefoot digging, its the best
Hi
Umm...No hospital managers are employed by PCT's not ELECTED members who represent a community. Trying to equate curators with people demonised by tabloids is not debate.
No, you wouldn't but that's because you don't have a public duty of care like officers employed by elected members do. When I advice developers on the requirements of the LPA I also want to ensure proper quality and standards are implemented and not see the developer ripped off as that could bring archaeology in my county into disrepute.
Yes they should, but as shown by Dino's last post commercial interests can be paramount rather than the actual real reason for an evaluation which is to provide sufficient information to determine a planning application.
Yes they should, but that is entirely down to the advice they get so the same question occurs, are they more likely to un-biased advice from a commercially focused unit or an officer with no interest in the financial outcome?
There are some units with records of struggling with certain projects so sometimes more guidance is required.
Actually PPS says that Local Authorities should help applicants identify heritage assets, it is non-prescriptive in whether council or consultants should offer advice.
Steven