14th December 2005, 12:51 PM
The way I read Valletta, it barely does more than reiterate already established British standards (PPG16, AMAAA Act 1979) to the wider European audiance. It does have implications for making the SMR and HERs statutory and the governement is currently grapling with the issue. I can't see there being any serious change, but I hope that some of the districts more openly hostile to PPG16 will be forced into line by the changes. I also don't think it was Valletta that started these changes, rather pressure from the archaeological community, but I could be wrong.
When it talks about public money it refers to Local Government curatorship of the archaeological resource, e.g. smr and museums.
The excavations and conservation of finds is paid for by the developer so the mater of prohibitive costs doesn't often come up. I won't discuss the mater of prohibitive costs in a "developer pays for the archaeology" world here as it will take too long.
When it talks about public money it refers to Local Government curatorship of the archaeological resource, e.g. smr and museums.
The excavations and conservation of finds is paid for by the developer so the mater of prohibitive costs doesn't often come up. I won't discuss the mater of prohibitive costs in a "developer pays for the archaeology" world here as it will take too long.