Yes, burying archaeology seems to be the preferred way going forward but for me it's a bit like buying a pair of shoes that are too good to wear. What's the point ? That said, a bit surprised that the Castle Stuart site required that much investigation. I wonder if it really was more archaeologically of interest than the Renaissance site or whether the planners have just got more demanding in the quarter century (ouch !!) since you built the Renaissance course ?
Both sites were known for archaeological findings, so they were going to get scrutiny. And I am sure things were more restrictive 25 years on.
But the main difference was that my plans for Renaissance showed minimal cut and fill, and the government were not sticklers about maybe hitting something while installing irrigation. So we were only monitored on a few holes.
For Old Petty, they were told we would do extensive excavation to get down to a gravelly or sandy base, so the entire site was under review. In addition to bubbles around known areas, we had to excavate 1/7 of the site [dig a trench 3 feet wide every 21 feet] to see what was found, and then further investigate anything that was deemed significant.