15th September 2011, 11:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 15th September 2011, 11:36 AM by Sparky.)
I agree Oxo, and with the overlying sentiments expressed in this thread that the archaeology is being scape-goated. I would be very surprised that this came as a shock to the council as the management and financial systems should have kept tabs on expenditure. But as to why the council agreed to build on this site which clearly has archaeology of national significance remains puzzling when obviously, as is often the case, the archaeological works are likely to be very pricey. And perhaps more perplexing, if they did agree to the works with the likely costs in mind, then maybe the council would like to explain why they are complaing.
I hope the archaeologists involved kept a decent paper trail.
I hope the archaeologists involved kept a decent paper trail.