Polluter Pays

[drpeterwardle]

I take the point that in some areas land and house values are very low.

I stick by comment on PR (having spent the afternoon with the communication director of one of my clients in my experience 99% of developers do not want publicity.

The idea that archaeology can help with contamination issues is that it cannot. Our insurances do not allow for it.

Similarly historical flood data is no use - the nature of run off has changed and again our insurances donot allow us to give advice on flooding.

The nature of previous foundations and voids etc is the province of engineers and again we are not insured to do this.

We have to accept it we are are rarely useful to developers.


Peter Wardle
(Who has advised on all of these things in the last week as I had training in engineering geology, hydology, chemistry etc!)

[Post-Med Potterer]

I appreciate that we all speak from our own experience. However, I would take issue with your statements as follows...

You say
"The idea that archaeology can help with contamination issues is that it cannot".
Well, in my experience, historical analysis of previous land use can at least identify the POTENTIAL for the existence or otherwise of contaminated ground. Developers' understanding of the type of residues left by earlier industrial activity is often not as full as it might be - to a developer an iron foundry and a gasworks are equally uninteresting. But as archaeologists we know that these features leave entirely different levels of contamination - in the case of the latter potentially carcenogenic phenols, in the case of the former some harmless iron oxide.

You say
"Similarly historical flood data is no use - the nature of run off has changed..."
Again, my own experience suggests that historical watercourses are often culverted, and older systems of both rainwater and foul drainage may be connected with these - as well as with relcit industrial leats, streams, and other features. Sites on or near historic watercourses (natural or man-made) often exhibit drainage patterns which relate to historic land-use patterns.

You say
"The nature of previous foundations and voids etc is the province of engineers..."
Certainly analysis of the load-bearing capacities of such features is the province of engineers, but the IDENTIFICATION of such features is often enabled by archaeological research.

In this last point I can use the example of one recent project with which I was involved, where the developers were extremely grateful for our diligent research in the record office coupled with trial trenching prior to redevelopment. Our estimates of the likely location, extent and nature of brick and concrete features enabled their QS to provide an accurate assessment of the cost of removal, and saved several weeks of expensive ground reduction.

As for the PR angle we will have to agree to differ - I think 99% is rather too high in my own experience, and would suggest 80% being nearer the mark.



(PS. Apologies for using CAPITALS for emphasis but I seem to only be able to get basic formatting at present.)

[BAJR Host]

Have to say I agree with PMP on this... the number of time developers have thanked the stars that although we found no significant archaeology we did find that the well/cellar/bedrock would have knackered the porposed development and the 5 drill holes done by a coring company (usually at similar cost) did not really reflect teh sub-surface topography. Add to that the fact that developers now use my building plans as 'more useful' than an architects or my topo surveys as more informatve and I think we can see a real saleable resource here...

plus PR..plus community involvement plus etc etc.


BAJR

[drpeterwardle]

Sorry for the tardy response, I am bogged down in CVs - all these things are possible but it is a question of demarcation. The engineer does engineering and designing the foundations, the hydrologist deals with flooding the PR chap/chapess writes the press releases but they are actually qualified and insured to do these things.

If you are doing work for another professional - saving them time - when they are on a fixed fee of course they are going to be grateful - you have absorbed the work and the liabilities. My cynical advice is stick to what you know and do not oversell archaeology being able to do other things.


Dr Peter Wardle

(Who with the help of my documentary researcher have shown we own a wall since 1626 because we paid for the repairs until a building was constructed on the exact line, via map regression analysis. The party wall surveyor has of course to verify the documents in medieval latin and the accuracy of the map regression analysis .......)

[troll]

My concern is a simple one- I feel that the conditions laid down by Councils may be determined under pressure from corporate lobbyists and as a result, our very identity becomes a secondary consideration.Can we integrate the finite resource within new builds? Lay glass floors where archaeology is found beneath schools and public buildings? Developers could be compensated or given "perks" if they are seen to uphold the concept of (partial) preservation in situ whereby making an educational/cultural contribution to the nations identity. Why does "pollution" as Dr Wardle put it have to result in total destruction?

[muddyandcold]

It is only right and fair that the polluter pays. However, a fairer system (and one that I know has been mooted in the past) is that all applications are judged upon archaeological merit. The developer would then be charged a fee dependant upon size and archaeology to central body (EH for the sake of arguement), with a contingency for emergence work. The central body would then be responible for paying for the work.

This scheme would the effect that larger developments would, in general pay more; there would be funds available for rescue; and units would have to apply seperately to the central organisation for funds for post-ex , not the developer (quality control)

[1man1desk]

quote:Originally posted by muddy

It is only right and fair that the polluter pays. However, a fairer system (and one that I know has been mooted in the past) is that all applications are judged upon archaeological merit. The developer would then be charged a fee dependant upon size and archaeology to central body (EH for the sake of arguement), with a contingency for emergence work. The central body would then be responible for paying for the work.

This scheme would the effect that larger developments would, in general pay more; there would be funds available for rescue; and units would have to apply seperately to the central organisation for funds for post-ex , not the developer (quality control)

It's a nice idea, and one that would provide a neat answer to the conflict between the 'polluter pays' principle and the public (rather than private) provision of archaeological services.

One problem though - you would still have a strong corporate lobbying operation to keep the fee down, but instead of lobbying about individual cases by individual companies (usually relatively weak, especially if there are good precedents) you would get collective lobbying by industry groups (usually much more powerful and influential). The proportion of the cost paid by the developer would be squeezed, and the rest would come out of public funds. The whole process would be compounded by the general political bias (in all 3 main parties) against regulation.

The effect would be that public funds would be short, and we'd be back to the bad old pre-PPG16 days, when most 'rescue' excavations saved no more of the site than we would look at in an evaluation nowadays.

Speaking of which - under this scheme, how would evaluations be paid for?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

I fel that the subscriber from Stateside has made an important point-impress upon the developer the value in the eyes of the public-involve them.Also-compulsory developer Insurance....

[Cautionary Tale]

I think I've been quite lucky in having dealt with a lot of companies who appear to have had a good graps on the archaeology which may crop up on their sites: whether they were being altruistic, public minded or just cynically seeking good PR didn't bother me, nor does it now so long as the funds and the time were there.
As to the subject of insurance, I think this might be another topic for the conference (perhaps with someone from a builders federation there to 'balance' things up?B)). To a certain extent, if a consultant is involved there is an element of insurance if things go wrong. I can think of a few (that I wasn't directly involved in and I wouldn't discuss even if I was) that have been funded this way.
I'd also like to see some more research into the long term results of in situ preservation. Much of the time the way to ensure this is by manipulating piling designs etc to avoid features. I flicked through a study a while ago which meant through the 'halo' effect around piles and the damage this caused. Should we be looking to build something into project designs which calls for inspection of the in situ remains to check on their stability?[?]

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by Barnesy

Should we be looking to build something into project designs which calls for inspection of the in situ remains to check on their stability?[?]

This is a nice idea, but difficult to work out the specifics. Many "preserved in-situ" sites are sealed under the concrete rafts and piles of large buildings, or buried under open spaces within housing estates, (we've got a nice site "preserved" under a motorway) which would make ongoing monitoring extremely difficult. However, as previously PPG16 - developed sites come up for redevelopment again (and it's beginning to happen), this sort of inspection will be a lot easier to carry out. I'm looking forward to it, as I get the feeling that a lot of preservation seems to be a developers' cop-out, to avoid paying for the digging in the first place, and it's time some decent study was done into how this process works in practice.