The archaeo's response is encouraging. I took a better look at the consultation documents to see if there is any way that their position statement could open the door.

The authors of the consultation have been very thorough in developing the documents: But overall, there may be a method of opening a door to change. Unfortunately, the work that the archaeos have done probably isn't enough by itself. Here's the author's (somewhat buried away) note saying which set of financial rules will be used to provide the final argument, and also provide an opportunity for the counter-arguments against, any given application:

"4.3.7 When considering an application for development consent, the Secretary of State will consider its benefits including for economic growth, job creation, and environmental improvement. This will be considered against adverse impacts of the scheme including long-term cumulative impacts. Such applications are required to be supported by a business case prepared in accordance with Treasury Green Book principles."

Out of interest, the Green Book is the basis of assessment of policy change and was used by the likes of Stern. This forum is hostile to the idea that archaeology may have value that can be quantified, so it would be a waste of everyone's time to discuss it here. However, I'll put a bit more about it (and what else happened in the consultation using this sort of argument) on the Megalithic Portal.