+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Planning as proportion of developer funding (/showthread.php?tid=1665)
Planning as proportion of developer funding - tom wilson - 7th July 2009
Hi All,
In the latest British Archaeology, Kenneth Aitchison states:
'In 2006, 93% of all archaeological investigations...were initiated through the planning system.'
Taken literally, this seems very high to me. A large amount of developer-funded archaeological works take place outside the planning system (major infrastructure projects etc., those that are subject to EIA or are permitted works). Obviously, while these projects are fewer in number, they tend to be on the large side. Does anyone know the proportions of developer-funded work that is or is not subject to PPG16 (by site, by cost, or whatever distinction seems apt)?
Cheers,
Tom
freeburmarangers.org
Planning as proportion of developer funding - Oxbeast - 7th July 2009
Hard to say how accurate this percentage is without knowing the underlying assumptions. I'm assuming that 'investigation' means digging a hole, which would seem to rule out all DBAs, EIAs and non-intrusive assessments, whether within planning or not. If a road scheme or pipeline was counted as 'one' then the figure might be accurate, but you're really into an apple/orange comparison situation.
You'd also have to count the number of 'investigations' run by academics, amateurs and societies, which can't really be more than an educated guess.
The point is probably sound, that almost all archaeology is comissioned through the planning system.
Planning as proportion of developer funding - tom wilson - 7th July 2009
Hi Beast.
OK then, the full quote is:
'In 2006, 93% of all archaeological investigations- whether assessments, evaluations, excavations or surveys- were initiated through the planning system.'
So that's fieldwork.
As I suggested, per project isn't an appropriate comparison. Per million quid is probably better (although comparison with projects outside developer-funding would then be invalid). Per context sheet?
I don't think 'almost all' archaeology is commissioned through the planning system at all. Perhaps I should have been more specific in the OP, but I ask the question because it is relevant to two issues:
1) since PPG isn't directing all developer-funded archaeological projects, that has ramifications for heritage protection reform
2) since we are in a recession, and can expect a larger proportion of projects to be infrastructure etc. than in boom times, the proportion of work covered by PPG is likely to drop (has already, in my own work).
freeburmarangers.org
Planning as proportion of developer funding - drpeterwardle - 7th July 2009
Infra structure projects are part of the planning system full stop.
The projects ones that are not are
1. research projects private and institutional or by a society
2. Training projects
3. Voluntary work by developers ie work the planning system cannot demand
4. Work on things for DEFRA grants
5. Work in advance of none development threats
6. Strategic work eg the EH study of coastlines
I would suggest that work done by developers when they are not required to do it by the planning system are few and far between and be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Peter Wardle
Planning as proportion of developer funding - tom wilson - 7th July 2009
Thankyou Peter, for that comprehensive definition of what archaeology in the planning system isn't. I suspect you know precisely what I am driving at though.
I am comparing work covered by planning policy guidance with work that is covered by other forms of regulation.
freeburmarangers.org
Planning as proportion of developer funding - drpeterwardle - 7th July 2009
PPG 16 is not regulation its guidance - I not sure what distinction you are drawing.
Do you stat undertakers like gas water and electricity that operate via codes of conduct which refer to PPG 16?
Peter Wardle
Planning as proportion of developer funding - Unitof1 - 7th July 2009
I agree with the Good Dr, what are you trying to get at, might it be 80% or something? isn?t all of it commercial or is this as close as you can get to saying Kenneth who and what is he wittering on about. You wont be surprised that I have not read the recent article but there is this from March this year http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/Aitchison/#author
Its got a conclusion with but I suspect that that should be ?Let me repeat what I have said in slightly less words? I imagine the guy is rehashing as part of some campaign to show that he has his finger on the pulse. As an ifa cog he seems to suffer from the pretence that county units turned into commercial units but does not mention that a lot are still hanging on to council service agreements and that that?s what us who ?have been able to survive on the very edges of viability and some of which operate at the extreme margins of good practice? hope are destroyed in this downturn. Any unit near you keeping its directors going through grants?
He does seem to want to focus on us poor old commercials when this mob don?t seem to have a problem with the downturn
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/masters/index.htm
it appears they intend to produce about 240 Masters of the universe by the end of 2010, at the beginning of the nineties they probably produced about 10.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/ug/summary/BAabroad.htm
is that the equivalent of Tebbits get on yer bike, nobody wants to spend a year with a home unit, is it cause we produce something that nobody wants?
Planning as proportion of developer funding - tom wilson - 8th July 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
Do you stat undertakers like gas water and electricity that operate via codes of conduct which refer to PPG 16?
You seem intent on nit-picking over semantics, which is a bit rich coming from someone who doesn't proof-read.
As you will know, not all projects are subject to the same procedures, and many procedures come with different standards, different methods and classifications for assessing importance, different terminology, and different consultees. PPG16 is not the be-all and end-all.
I could re-phrase the question in the OP, but that could cause yet more confusion, so I'll spell it out again here:
What proportion of developer-funded archaeology comes under Environmental Statements, permitted developments etc. rather than being guided solely by PPG16 under the watchful eye of the county mountie?
freeburmarangers.org
Planning as proportion of developer funding - Unitof1 - 8th July 2009
why ask? does it matter, its basically all civil service
Planning as proportion of developer funding - Windbag - 8th July 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Unitof1
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/ug/summary/BAabroad.htm
Personally I would have loved to do a course like that early in my academic career.