5th January 2011, 10:00 PM
Except it wasn't all about MSC or Department of Environment funding.
There were some units persuading developers to pay for excavations in the 70s and 80s, notably Southampton, Winchester, York, DUA, DGLA, Norwich, SUAT, St Albans, Canterbury to name a few. Some of these 'contributions' were tempered by section 53 (latterly section 106) planning gain agreements and I guess the success of such initiatives lead eventually to PPG16. But PPG16 wasn't a total shock to the system and if memory serves me right just about all of the English county,city units and charitable trusts had had some success with attracting developer funding prior to the introduction of PPG16. (I can't comment on the situation in Wales and Scotland). I do remember around about 1984 there was actually an underspend on Department of Environment funding, because a lot of units decided it wasn't worth the hassle of the associated form filling/arse licking for the pittance that DoE was handing out for single project grants at that time. (There were rumours that YAT had been 'tipped off' about such an underspend and had snuck in right at the end of the application period an enormous number of applications for project funding....but that's by the by). My point is that most units at the time were generating enough cash from other sources NOT to be totally reliant on DoE funding.
There were also archaeological projects funded as a result of 'regeneration funding' which even back in the 80s often included a mixture of private/public funding and quite often it was these projects which fell under the MSC/Job Creation cover-all. Sometimes though these could be subject to change at short notice. I remember working on such a project in Newcastle, but the part of the funding from central government was 'redistributed' to riot-stricken Liverpool at short notice and the project folded.
There were some units persuading developers to pay for excavations in the 70s and 80s, notably Southampton, Winchester, York, DUA, DGLA, Norwich, SUAT, St Albans, Canterbury to name a few. Some of these 'contributions' were tempered by section 53 (latterly section 106) planning gain agreements and I guess the success of such initiatives lead eventually to PPG16. But PPG16 wasn't a total shock to the system and if memory serves me right just about all of the English county,city units and charitable trusts had had some success with attracting developer funding prior to the introduction of PPG16. (I can't comment on the situation in Wales and Scotland). I do remember around about 1984 there was actually an underspend on Department of Environment funding, because a lot of units decided it wasn't worth the hassle of the associated form filling/arse licking for the pittance that DoE was handing out for single project grants at that time. (There were rumours that YAT had been 'tipped off' about such an underspend and had snuck in right at the end of the application period an enormous number of applications for project funding....but that's by the by). My point is that most units at the time were generating enough cash from other sources NOT to be totally reliant on DoE funding.
There were also archaeological projects funded as a result of 'regeneration funding' which even back in the 80s often included a mixture of private/public funding and quite often it was these projects which fell under the MSC/Job Creation cover-all. Sometimes though these could be subject to change at short notice. I remember working on such a project in Newcastle, but the part of the funding from central government was 'redistributed' to riot-stricken Liverpool at short notice and the project folded.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...