+- 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: Polluter Pays (/showthread.php?tid=6)
Polluter Pays - BAJR Host - 15th May 2004
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.
Polluter Pays - Post-Med Potterer - 27th May 2004
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]
Polluter Pays - drpeterwardle - 29th May 2004
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
Polluter Pays - Post-Med Potterer - 29th May 2004
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.
Polluter Pays - drpeterwardle - 29th May 2004
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.
Polluter Pays - rkeyo - 30th May 2004
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.
Polluter Pays - destroyer - 30th May 2004
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.
Polluter Pays - drpeterwardle - 30th May 2004
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
Polluter Pays - charlie farnsbarnes - 31st May 2004
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.
Polluter Pays - Post-Med Potterer - 31st May 2004
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.