No that was just the Romany gyps that went on the site after the pit closed

didn't salford have something similar happen on there site too

UNLESS proof of a serious settlement of "archeological interest" can be identified, then this opposition will probably result in a planning condition that the area is monitored during excavation works and findings discovered (the watching brief bit)

we have recently developed a site in sandal and are tendering for one in york. both of which i would say to have more chance of finding something "archeologically worthwhile" than the site of a former pit!! - and the planning only said to allow for the watching brief

this oppostion doesn't unduly worry me, although it would add costs to the development as a whole as the developer would have to pay for someone to watch the digging of all foundations etc in case they find a cracked vase etc.

the big worry would be if they found something....

Roman coins were found in Stanley near the river about 1 mile away from the site, suggesting there was a Roman settlement there in the 4th century.

Also Neolithic arrow heads were found at Newmarket House, and a neolithic canoe along with axe heads were found whilst digging out foundations for Stanley Aqueduct.

Do you still have all those old white £5 notes in that old shoebox under the bed?

Ha! There goes the green field theory!! It's obviously been built on for years.

no spent them

Please remember, this is Stanley!!!
Neolithic is still very much cutting edge technology!!!!
And perhaps one day, it might even catch on in cas'!!!!

wonder what else we may find with our metal detectors ?, anyway, there will obviously be lots of reasons coming up as to why the new ground cant go ahead, de javu, 15years ago,10 years ago etc etc

Just out of interest, what were those reasons?

Apparently it's quite common for this sort of thing to happen when excavating on potentially historic sites.

I know all too well!