29th May 2004, 01:41 PM
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.
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.