27th May 2004, 03:25 PM
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.
There that's my pennyworth (or more like a pound!)[:I]
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.
There that's my pennyworth (or more like a pound!)[:I]