Polluter Pays

[BAJR Host]

In a recent discussion with a... 'natioanl archaeology insitution' shall we say that the concept of the developer being liable for all expences was seen as the norm... this seems to completely forget the fact that the developer can then only see archaeology as a trap and a tax....

Should there be more financial help for

a. the small developer that finds a significant site (I kno... define significant!!)

b. a large developer who is shelling out 6 figure sums to jump through another planning hoop with little material benefit to them?

Nobody should take moral high ground here... but perhaps a debate is i order.

[Post-Med Potterer]

In short, to answer your questions

a. Yes

b. No

Longer answer...

a.

A small proportion of PPG16 jobs are where some poor unfortunate bungalow-owner, who has decided to halve their garden and build another house in it, happens to live on a site of archaeological interest. We have had three of those in the last two years. Another case was a 'shed' which one landowner wished to demolished, but the LPA put a building recording condition on it because it was formerly a small forge. In these situations I am sympathetic for the poor 'developer' because they are usually just a house-owner with few resources. The LPA Archaeologists are usually sypathetic, and in my experience the briefs tend to be a bit less stringent than for larger developments (ie. a watching brief). Therefore I think that there should be some support for such people.

The form this support takes could of course be in many forms - and I would be interested to hear what people have to say about this.
1. Direct payment to the landowner to subsidise the cost of archaeological work (he selects a tenderer in the usual way)
2. Establishment of a 'roving unit' either under the control of local authority units (god help us) or EH to deal with this kind of work
3. A direct arrangement between the LPA Archaeologist who has set the condition and an archaeological contractor - ie. the local authority effectively tenders for the work on behalf of the small landowner.

I would favour 1 or 3, personally, as they would distort the open market less.

b.

On the other hand, a large development (and one where the developer is paying 6-figure sums for 'planning hoops' will certainly be a multi-million pound development) should pay for archaeology just as they pay for environmental aspects (ie. prevention of water pollution, removal of contamination etc.). These developments are usually extremely profitable, and the cost of archaeology (even if we all charged £400 per day like everyone else) is still a fraction of the cost overall. Unless the site is REALLY significant in which case preservation in situ is probably a cheaper option (vide the 'Ove Arup' solution, although not without its pitfalls as the PARIS volume demonstrated).

In this respect I feel that archaeology should in many ways be on the boat of other environmental concerns. For example, a developer will roll their eyes and sigh deeply if an environmental study means that the project is delayed for a couple of months by nesting badgers (or whatever) but will accept it; but will tend to fight a lot harder against archaeology.

In part this is because many developers don't think of archaeology until the very last minute. If archaeology was integrated into the developers' programme as thoroughly as certain other environmental impacts, then we might grumble less and get paid more.:D

There that's my pennyworth (or more like a pound!)[:I]

[drpeterwardle]

Hang on a minute....

The realities of development are actually different.

A poor house holder like me that is selling half of his garden will make a six figure sum profit. (In some areas this is not true but in most of Britain it is).

A big PLC house builder will in fact make about 2-3% profit overall.

Are we also advocating subsiding the building costs or the architects fees 10% on small jobs? What is the difference?

The notion of The Polluter Pays is very Thatcherite and assummes that all development is a form of pollution. Ultimately it is but so is breathing and going to the bog. Some development remove pollution surely the concept of the polluter pays rely doesnot apply. Who would argue that a new school or hospital is a form of pollution. People also need houses, they need infrastructure but do they really need archaeology.



Peter Wardle

[Post-Med Potterer]

Well, you have raised some interesting points. I'm not sure I agree with all of them, but here goes...

1. Whilst the sum derived from the sale of land in certain suburban locales might be upwards of £100,000, the actual profit on this might be somewhat less, once development costs (building/planning etc.) are taken into account. In many cases small landowners find it difficult to raise the capital to start such projects, and have to take on a considerable amount of risk in doing the development. However, as someone whose garden is only 3mx8m I am not well-placed to know much about this, and bow to your greater knowledge for the time being.

2. I wasn’t advocating the subsidy of non-archaeological project costs, but you do raise a valid point – if one element (archaeology) is subsidised, then why not others? I am thinking here of very small projects, and I know from my own experience that many such projects have ignored (or worse, destroyed) archaeology because of the perceived (financial) cost. I think a line needs to be drawn that is quite far down the scale of project size, and this needs to be thought out carefully.

3. Regardless of whether the ‘polluter pays’ principle is indeed ‘Thatcherite’ in origin, it remains one of the guiding notions behind PPG16. And [u]all</u> development has the potential to destroy the archaeological resource, and is, therefore, ‘polluting’ in this context. So there is no difference between a new hospital and a new office block in this regard; the origin and purpose of the development is irrelevant to its potential impact on the historic environment.

I can think of several major infrastructure projects off the top of my head – the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the M6 Toll (Birmingham North Relief Road) and Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 – all of which have had major archaeological works associated with them. I can also think of several hospitals, schools and other ‘public’ works where archaeological mitigation work has also been required. These are all key projects for the common good which have been undertaken to enable/enhance economic growth in the UK, or to provide public services. Where objections have been raised by the general public, the cost or relevance of the archaeological work has not been called into question; rather the main public objections are the wider environmental impacts associated with the operation of these projects when finished (eg. increased traffic flow, noise and air pollution, potential for accidents etc.).

Therefore I would suggest that people need houses, infrastructure AND archaeology.:)

[drpeterwardle]

The economics of selling off your garden do vary from place to place but is a nice little earner in most places. I am talking about the profit to the land owner - the capital gain. This can be achieved at no risk to the house holder - a development company will pay for the permissions in turn for a lower price for the land.

To give a real world example of the economics. Take a Garden of 1/5 of an acre (developers always work in imperial). Developing the plot would cost:
150k for building a 2000 square foot house - a large four/five bedroom executive house.
Professional fees 10,000
Landscaping 10,000
Garage 10,000
Finance 10,000
Archaeology 500 - the Local unit for a day doing a watching brief
Excavation 20k - if the entire plot needed excavation. Net cost 210k. The value of the house would be 750 k. Thus if permission could be obtained - it can not be - developing backland plots was stopped along time ago then the net total profit on the land and the development would be 540k more than the total amount I have earned in my career in archaeology.

Would I be bothered about 20k on an excavation in my back garden and thus losing 5% of my profit or six months salary?

Raising the finance is easy once you have planning permission provided professionals are involved and provided there is no archaeology. Archaeology is something that makes banks very nervous.

Recent studies by the IFA have shown that in particular the built environment and standing monuments are good for people's health. I am not convinced the 2/3 of watching briefs and evaluations that do not find anything are that necessary however.

I am amazed how most people think that archaeologists and conservation professionals are not involved at an early stage in development. I do 50% of my work at the purchase or sale stage depending on which side of the fence I am sitting on often I value the land taking the archaeological costs into account - hence why I can do development appraisals in my head. I have absolutely no sympathy for developers who donot involve archaeological consultants at the outset.

In fact the reason why they donot do so is that they take the view that as soon as you involve an archaeologist they will spend your money. Thus it is better to wait until the black spot is placed on the development and you know everything is neccessary.

Current conservation and political thinking for one of the parties - the one that has a policy on archaeology (David is it OK to be political at election time?) - is that purpose and social good are important. Historic assets may be traded for social good - this is current thinking. As I put in a letter to my local newspaper: which is more important affordable housing for the young or the views of two old buildings (both 2* by the way). Part of a historic asset may be traded in order to preserve the rest and planning permission granted when it otherwise would not.

If government subsidy for the historic environment is available would it not be better spending it on the 17.5% of grade 1 and grade II listed buildings which are at risk of falling down or being demolished compared to subsidising house holders like me making a profit. Would it not be better spending the money on more museums?

I would also suggest a tad cynically that objectors to development particularly local residents suddenly discover there historic environment and are suddenly in favour of preserving it. If it will stop a school then the view will be "the education of one child is more important than that the view of a Saxon earthwork".

Peter Wardle

PS somebody I know in our village is just about to apply for permisison to build a few houses on the land around his house. About 20 acres worth.

[rkeyo]

A major reason why dealing with archaeological concerns on development sites is given such short shrift is that, as was noted in the opening question, is that it is seen as a debit, with few, if any, redeeming (i.e., profitable)aspects. This is partly because the laws are coercive in nature, rarely offering more than token benefits for compliance, while theatening massive penalties for noncompliance. It is also because cultural resource management units have shown little in the way of creative approaches, often failing to offer to work with their clients to maximise the public relations benefits that can derive from treatment of the sites involved. The public appetite for our human past is insatiable, and marketed properly, every archaeological project has the potential of being a public realtions/education/community development and relations bonanza for the outfit paying for it. When archaeolgy can be made profitable, developers become willing - if not eager - to do it and do it well.

As to subsidizing projects, large and small, I would suggest that a tax rebate/deduction, in the amount of the costs incurred, spread over 5 to 10 years (depending on the circumstances of the project and the 'developer'), could go a long way towards easing the burden on the developer, without involving disasterous outlays of cash by either government (which is us, paying out our tax monies) or the private parties doing the development.

Michael O.

[destroyer]

Well I agree with Peter in that most housing developers, in the current housing price boom, can easily absorb archaeological costs. I'm currently working on a development so huge that the cost of the archaeology (5 people for 6 weeks plus post ex)is working out at about £50 a house! So going back to Bajrs original point - No, large commercial developers shouldnt recieve help to fulfill their planning obligations. They may not see any material benefit to their business but thats not the point, it is providing a benefit to our cultural and historical heritage which they would have otherwise destroyed.

However this still doesnt help the small homeowner, building an extension because he can't afford to move. Yes he may be improving the value of his home but this isnt actually putting cash into his pocket and archaeological costs are often a bank breaking extra. Local government funded WB's on small sites is one way to help subsidise this type of development.

And can I just object to one statement made... 'I am not convinced the 2/3 of watching briefs and evaluations that do not find anything are that necessary'. Well, yes, in hindsight maybe, but doesnt the beauty of this job lie in the fact that you'll never know what might turn up? I've always been told that the absence of archaeology can be just as important as its presence and if we dont check on development we'll never know what we've missed. I know my local curatorial archaeologist has recieved calls in the past from public spirited developers who have come across something but had no planning condition applied.

[drpeterwardle]

I agree with destroyer that watching briefs and evaluations do have a value if nothing is found. The point I am making is are they giving good value - it is easy to spend other people's money. In Wales in the eighties CADW stopped funding watching briefs because they said there was a very low information return on the cost.

As for the poor householder who wants to build an extension because they can't afford to move I have little sympathy. The extension will increase the value of their house considerably. Archaeological work on an extension will always be relatively cheap.

The notion that developers can benefit from publicity about archaeology is both an old chestnut and generally untrue. It may be different in the US but in Britain the publicity is generally not worthwhile and indeed is counter productive.

Archaeology and the Historic environment can have a major value to developers - it all depends on how it is approached (and no I am not going to reveal how!!)

Peter Wardle

[charlie farnsbarnes]

Surely the point about asking for planning conditions that require watching briefs or evaluation is not only to ensure that known archaeology is protected, but also to find new archaeology. Any SMR contains only records that relate to sites that are already known, and can never be a difinitive record of all archaeology in a given area. By asking for evaluation of, for example, greenfield developments where there is no previously recorded archaeology, the curator is therefore taking the chance to enhance the archaeological record. Sometimes this pays off spectacularly, more often it returns a negative result, but without suchspeculation sites would be lost without record.

[Post-Med Potterer]

I would agree with rkeyo that there is substantial public interest in archaeology and 'heritage' generally, and that this could be better utilised by developers. I think that drpeterwardle is off the mark when he states, rather sweepingly, that publicity from archaeological work in the UK is 'counter-productive'. I am aware of several sites, both traditional below-ground archaeology and historic buildings, where positive publicity about the historic aspect of the site in question has enhanced the marketability of the finished project. The classic case at the upper end of the market is the redevelopment of former industrial buildings to apartments; the marketing is very much focussed on the heritage angle. But this applies to other sites, too.

Moreover, the real value of archaeological investigation to the developer is not the 'academic' historical story that we all value, but the rather more prosaic (and, to the developer, useful) facts about (for example)
- the nature of the ground itself, including any voids, culverts etc. which need to be avoided/extracted/built around
- the depth of previous foundations, their nature and extent
- the historic likelihood of (for example) flooding
- previous land-use which might have caused contamination
and so-on.

Both destroyer and rkyeo seem to agree with me that some form of 'allowance' for the householder (at the very bottom end of the 'developer' scale) is appropriate. drpeterwardle seems to be talking about housing in the £500,000 plus price range. What about Joe Bloggs in Rotherham, whose house is worth £70,000 before extension, and £90,000 afterwards? If he is spending £15,000 on that extension, and happens through no fault of his own to be located on a Saxon cemetery, then the cost of archaeological intervention will be vastly disproportionate to his development costs and 'profits'. It was this kind of case study that I had in mind!

Finally, I have to concur with others that negative evidence is still evidence. Indeed I would question the appropriateness of watching briefs in many instances - perhaps I shall start another thread.

[drpeterwardle]

I take the point that in some areas land and house values are very low.

I stick by comment on PR (having spent the afternoon with the communication director of one of my clients in my experience 99% of developers do not want publicity.

The idea that archaeology can help with contamination issues is that it cannot. Our insurances do not allow for it.

Similarly historical flood data is no use - the nature of run off has changed and again our insurances donot allow us to give advice on flooding.

The nature of previous foundations and voids etc is the province of engineers and again we are not insured to do this.

We have to accept it we are are rarely useful to developers.


Peter Wardle
(Who has advised on all of these things in the last week as I had training in engineering geology, hydology, chemistry etc!)

[Post-Med Potterer]

I appreciate that we all speak from our own experience. However, I would take issue with your statements as follows...

You say
"The idea that archaeology can help with contamination issues is that it cannot".
Well, in my experience, historical analysis of previous land use can at least identify the POTENTIAL for the existence or otherwise of contaminated ground. Developers' understanding of the type of residues left by earlier industrial activity is often not as full as it might be - to a developer an iron foundry and a gasworks are equally uninteresting. But as archaeologists we know that these features leave entirely different levels of contamination - in the case of the latter potentially carcenogenic phenols, in the case of the former some harmless iron oxide.

You say
"Similarly historical flood data is no use - the nature of run off has changed..."
Again, my own experience suggests that historical watercourses are often culverted, and older systems of both rainwater and foul drainage may be connected with these - as well as with relcit industrial leats, streams, and other features. Sites on or near historic watercourses (natural or man-made) often exhibit drainage patterns which relate to historic land-use patterns.

You say
"The nature of previous foundations and voids etc is the province of engineers..."
Certainly analysis of the load-bearing capacities of such features is the province of engineers, but the IDENTIFICATION of such features is often enabled by archaeological research.

In this last point I can use the example of one recent project with which I was involved, where the developers were extremely grateful for our diligent research in the record office coupled with trial trenching prior to redevelopment. Our estimates of the likely location, extent and nature of brick and concrete features enabled their QS to provide an accurate assessment of the cost of removal, and saved several weeks of expensive ground reduction.

As for the PR angle we will have to agree to differ - I think 99% is rather too high in my own experience, and would suggest 80% being nearer the mark.



(PS. Apologies for using CAPITALS for emphasis but I seem to only be able to get basic formatting at present.)

[BAJR Host]

Have to say I agree with PMP on this... the number of time developers have thanked the stars that although we found no significant archaeology we did find that the well/cellar/bedrock would have knackered the porposed development and the 5 drill holes done by a coring company (usually at similar cost) did not really reflect teh sub-surface topography. Add to that the fact that developers now use my building plans as 'more useful' than an architects or my topo surveys as more informatve and I think we can see a real saleable resource here...

plus PR..plus community involvement plus etc etc.


BAJR

[drpeterwardle]

Sorry for the tardy response, I am bogged down in CVs - all these things are possible but it is a question of demarcation. The engineer does engineering and designing the foundations, the hydrologist deals with flooding the PR chap/chapess writes the press releases but they are actually qualified and insured to do these things.

If you are doing work for another professional - saving them time - when they are on a fixed fee of course they are going to be grateful - you have absorbed the work and the liabilities. My cynical advice is stick to what you know and do not oversell archaeology being able to do other things.


Dr Peter Wardle

(Who with the help of my documentary researcher have shown we own a wall since 1626 because we paid for the repairs until a building was constructed on the exact line, via map regression analysis. The party wall surveyor has of course to verify the documents in medieval latin and the accuracy of the map regression analysis .......)

[troll]

My concern is a simple one- I feel that the conditions laid down by Councils may be determined under pressure from corporate lobbyists and as a result, our very identity becomes a secondary consideration.Can we integrate the finite resource within new builds? Lay glass floors where archaeology is found beneath schools and public buildings? Developers could be compensated or given "perks" if they are seen to uphold the concept of (partial) preservation in situ whereby making an educational/cultural contribution to the nations identity. Why does "pollution" as Dr Wardle put it have to result in total destruction?:D

[muddyandcold]

It is only right and fair that the polluter pays. However, a fairer system (and one that I know has been mooted in the past) is that all applications are judged upon archaeological merit. The developer would then be charged a fee dependant upon size and archaeology to central body (EH for the sake of arguement), with a contingency for emergence work. The central body would then be responible for paying for the work.

This scheme would the effect that larger developments would, in general pay more; there would be funds available for rescue; and units would have to apply seperately to the central organisation for funds for post-ex , not the developer (quality control)

[1man1desk]

quote:Originally posted by muddy

It is only right and fair that the polluter pays. However, a fairer system (and one that I know has been mooted in the past) is that all applications are judged upon archaeological merit. The developer would then be charged a fee dependant upon size and archaeology to central body (EH for the sake of arguement), with a contingency for emergence work. The central body would then be responible for paying for the work.

This scheme would the effect that larger developments would, in general pay more; there would be funds available for rescue; and units would have to apply seperately to the central organisation for funds for post-ex , not the developer (quality control)


It's a nice idea, and one that would provide a neat answer to the conflict between the 'polluter pays' principle and the public (rather than private) provision of archaeological services.

One problem though - you would still have a strong corporate lobbying operation to keep the fee down, but instead of lobbying about individual cases by individual companies (usually relatively weak, especially if there are good precedents) you would get collective lobbying by industry groups (usually much more powerful and influential). The proportion of the cost paid by the developer would be squeezed, and the rest would come out of public funds. The whole process would be compounded by the general political bias (in all 3 main parties) against regulation.

The effect would be that public funds would be short, and we'd be back to the bad old pre-PPG16 days, when most 'rescue' excavations saved no more of the site than we would look at in an evaluation nowadays.

Speaking of which - under this scheme, how would evaluations be paid for?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

I fel that the subscriber from Stateside has made an important point-impress upon the developer the value in the eyes of the public-involve them.Also-compulsory developer Insurance....

[Cautionary Tale]

I think I've been quite lucky in having dealt with a lot of companies who appear to have had a good graps on the archaeology which may crop up on their sites: whether they were being altruistic, public minded or just cynically seeking good PR didn't bother me, nor does it now so long as the funds and the time were there.
As to the subject of insurance, I think this might be another topic for the conference (perhaps with someone from a builders federation there to 'balance' things up?B);)). To a certain extent, if a consultant is involved there is an element of insurance if things go wrong. I can think of a few (that I wasn't directly involved in and I wouldn't discuss even if I was) that have been funded this way.
I'd also like to see some more research into the long term results of in situ preservation. Much of the time the way to ensure this is by manipulating piling designs etc to avoid features. I flicked through a study a while ago which meant through the 'halo' effect around piles and the damage this caused. Should we be looking to build something into project designs which calls for inspection of the in situ remains to check on their stability?[?]

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by Barnesy

Should we be looking to build something into project designs which calls for inspection of the in situ remains to check on their stability?[?]


This is a nice idea, but difficult to work out the specifics. Many "preserved in-situ" sites are sealed under the concrete rafts and piles of large buildings, or buried under open spaces within housing estates, (we've got a nice site "preserved" under a motorway) which would make ongoing monitoring extremely difficult. However, as previously PPG16 - developed sites come up for redevelopment again (and it's beginning to happen), this sort of inspection will be a lot easier to carry out. I'm looking forward to it, as I get the feeling that a lot of preservation seems to be a developers' cop-out, to avoid paying for the digging in the first place, and it's time some decent study was done into how this process works in practice.

[Cautionary Tale]

I think "difficult" would be an understatement CK. I would add that there is broad acceptance that if you interfere with a waterlogged (or other extreme condition) site, you'll disturb the equilibrium resulting in medium or long term damage whereas other sites are left after the investigation without any consideration. It's quite sad, as you say, that we simply don't know how effective the preserve in situ route is because of lack of study :( It seems to me there is ample scope for abstract studies into "post" fieldwork consequences, rather than waiting to be proactive about a second look at a PPG site - though I accept that firstly finding the funding/arranging the study would be a rather 'interesting' course of action, and the value of the 'second look' shouldn't be under-rated.

(I really have worked in the field)

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by Barnesy

It seems to me there is ample scope for abstract studies into "post" fieldwork consequences, rather than waiting to be proactive about a second look at a PPG site - though I accept that firstly finding the funding/arranging the study would be a rather 'interesting' course of action, and the value of the 'second look' shouldn't be under-rated.


I agree - but covering the funding is the big problem as you say. Working within the system we have, the "second look" seems to be the only way. Waterlogged sites can be effectively and fairly cheaply monitored via augering (if you can get to them...), although quite what you'd do with a site that had a piled foundation building on it, that suddenly started deteriorating and was about to be lost, is another question entirely!

[Post-Med Potterer]

The PARIS conferences of 1996 and 2001 addressed this issue. Case studies included a wide range of examples including piled buildings. The proceedings were published by MoLAS

1996 conference
http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/publicationDetails.asp?pid=36

2001 conference
http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/publicationDetails.asp?pid=49

[Fishslice]

quote:Originally posted by muddy

It is only right and fair that the polluter pays. However, a fairer system (and one that I know has been mooted in the past) is that all applications are judged upon archaeological merit. The developer would then be charged a fee dependant upon size and archaeology to central body (EH for the sake of arguement), with a contingency for emergence work. The central body would then be responible for paying for the work.

This scheme would the effect that larger developments would, in general pay more; there would be funds available for rescue; and units would have to apply seperately to the central organisation for funds for post-ex , not the developer (quality control)


Some recent changes in France may highlight the problems with this approach.

Prior to around 1998 excavations had been undertaken by AFAN (association pour les fouilles archaeologiques nationales) founded by the central government. The Competition Council decided that since developers financed archaeology, it was an economic activity covered by the rules of commercial competition. AFAN was subject to competition and private units encouraged.
This was eventually rejected by the French Government.

In 2001 the INRAP (National Institute for Preventative Archaeological research) was set up to undertake investigations prior to development. This instate is obliged under law to work with other bodies such as universities, CRNS etc.

Assessments (evaluations)are funded by a tax of 0.30 euros per square meter, while excavations are funded by a tax of 100 euros per cubic metre for sites containing archaeological layers, or according to the density of the remains.

Problems quickly arose. The main problems were:
Widescale developer dissatisfaction
tax was too high for some small developers, but too low overall.
INIAP was forced to recruit more archaeologists at a time when the country was attempting to reduce the size of the civil service.

With the change in government in 2002, the whole process became politically sensitive. Some MPs questioned the validity of pre development archaeology

In 2003 the 2001 was amended and a dual process proposed. Assessment is to be undertaken by the INRAP (founded by the development tax) while excavation will be subject to CT.

Based on "Preventive archaeology, public utilities amd commercial competition; the Franch Example" by Jean Paul Demoule in Naturopa No 99 2003.