Advice to BarbyHill Archaeological Project
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- BarbyHill Archaeological Project
- Date advice given
- 24 July 2013
- Enquiry type
With regard to your report of the meeting on 8 July 2013, I must correct an error. Your report states:
"Grenville Hatton on behalf of Barby Hill Archaeological Project raised the issue of heritage assets outside the limit of the proposed development that were as yet unidentified."
By referrring to the audio recording of the proceedings of the meeting, you will find that what I said was not "heritage assets outside the limit of the proposed development that were as yet unidentified" but "the effect of already recognised heritage assets outside the limit of the proposed development upon the discovery and interpretation of possible heritage aspects within the development area that are as yet unidentified".
I hope that you can now see the significance of this point, which is totally different from what you reported. The project documentation makes no reference to some significant heritage aspects just outside the development area, and in my opinion these aspects (which we have clearly identified in our WR) should be mentioned in the project documentation, because they may have a significant bearing on interpretation of possible heritage within the area.
Advice given
Apologies if you feel that the note does not accurately reflect the point you made verbally at the Preliminary Meeting. As a summary note of such a meeting, unfortunately we can never guarantee total accuracy. However, let me reassure you that I have passed this piece of correspondence on to the Examing Authority and he is fully aware of the matter. This will in no way limit your ability to raise the point during the examination through the appropriate stage. I would therefore strongly encourage you to ensure that in writing any written representation that you may wish to submit that you make the point in the way that you highlight below.