23rd July 2010, 12:57 PM
Hi Steven
A lot of developers would regard it as none of your business (as a curator) that they're planning to build something until they start the official planning procedure (particularly if its something controversial), but very often by that stage they've already spent 10s or 100s of thousands on design etc, so they want to know in advance of all that, often in detail, what potential archaeological/heritage implications there are, so they can avoid expensive re-designs, re-siting or even pulling the plug on the whole thing and looking for another site without having unneccessarily stirred up any s**t from the locals or the local planning authority. Also, if they're going ahead they often need some reasonably detailed idea of what mitigation might be involved, redesigning founds for large structures, the siting of balancing ponds etc can be very expensive and sometimes hopelessly impractical.
On the other hand, I'm aware of the location of a major site which you won't find in any HER/SMR since the knowledge was bought and paid for by the client, it's his and I'd get sued if I told you where it was, and having seen the gobsmacking geophys he went 'Oh s**t' and left it as a green field (although full marks, I drive past it occasionally and it hasn't been ploughed since, has become a retirement home for some scrawny-looking sheep). Bet there are hundreds like that up and down the country, so yes, your approach would be better, although of course by now the poor s*d would have had his field scheduled making it valueless.....although now of course it looks like he may be able to stick up to 10 houses on it (plus 'bolt-ons') without ever having to worry about the little archaeology issue.....
A lot of developers would regard it as none of your business (as a curator) that they're planning to build something until they start the official planning procedure (particularly if its something controversial), but very often by that stage they've already spent 10s or 100s of thousands on design etc, so they want to know in advance of all that, often in detail, what potential archaeological/heritage implications there are, so they can avoid expensive re-designs, re-siting or even pulling the plug on the whole thing and looking for another site without having unneccessarily stirred up any s**t from the locals or the local planning authority. Also, if they're going ahead they often need some reasonably detailed idea of what mitigation might be involved, redesigning founds for large structures, the siting of balancing ponds etc can be very expensive and sometimes hopelessly impractical.
On the other hand, I'm aware of the location of a major site which you won't find in any HER/SMR since the knowledge was bought and paid for by the client, it's his and I'd get sued if I told you where it was, and having seen the gobsmacking geophys he went 'Oh s**t' and left it as a green field (although full marks, I drive past it occasionally and it hasn't been ploughed since, has become a retirement home for some scrawny-looking sheep). Bet there are hundreds like that up and down the country, so yes, your approach would be better, although of course by now the poor s*d would have had his field scheduled making it valueless.....although now of course it looks like he may be able to stick up to 10 houses on it (plus 'bolt-ons') without ever having to worry about the little archaeology issue.....