Interesting.
But what a nightmare for conservationists.
Do you leave it for people to see and watch it fall apart as it dries out.
Do you re-bury it to preserve it (if future development permits.)
Do you lift and conserve it in a museum? (expensive)
I would not like to have to decide.
When the archaeologist Robert Waterhouse discovered a pair of waggon turntables dating from the 1810s at Morwellham (probably the oldest railway turntables in the world) about a decade ago they were recorded in situ and reburied. There were moves to lift them, conserve them and display them, however the cost was prohibitive.
My personal view at the time was that, given they were under no immediate threat, they should be left in situ. If nothing else my feeling was that removing them would destroy their context. Lifting should really be a last resort.
On one occasion in 2010 I had to physically stand in the way of an idiot digger driver who was going to put a pipe trench right through them. This was in spite of their having been scheduled. This took place soon after the site had been sold and had been taken over by a private company (it had previously owned by a charitable trust when the excavation had been undertaken).
Whilst I an not suggesting that this was in any way a malicious action it does highlight the fact that sites do change hands and what at one time was seen a secure site where conservation in situ was a viable option, may not be so at a later date, demonstrating the need for ongoing monitoring of such sites. Leaving artefacts in situ requires a long term management strategy to ensure their ongoing survival.