I am not convinced this is a major scandal or even a scandal at all.
What Harvey Sheldon is saying is that:
MOLAS or somebody underestimated the number of burials
The preservation in situ scheme will not work or it is better to excavate than preserve in situ.
In the case of the latter this has been debated at length. There is not enough infomation in the press release for us to make an informed decision about this. The Diocese has an archaeological advisor and thus it has to be assummed he is happy with the mitigation strategy.
As for the money running out - that is down to the contractors MOLAS depending on the type of contract and/or the consultants setting the briefs and specs. At some point somebody has set a budget for the archaeological work.
This is not a case of a rich developer but a not for profit organisation doing work for a community facility with government grant funding. The congregation has had to find UKP 1 million for its share of the project.
The building itself is a grade 2* building and is in a structurally unsafe condition and the nave cannot be used. Hence the need for underpinning. EH have been involved from the outset.
While extra excavation may cost an extra 50k there are also the post X costs. In addition cancelling the piling rig will not be cheap.
There will be extra engineers costs and it has to said how safe will it be undermining the wall of a structurally unsound building to record archaeological remains before under pinning ?
Details of the project can be found on:
Dr Peter Wardle