The value of a watching brief

[lucy78green]

a phone box and a nice cattle feeder complete with blue plastic tubes...

Lucy

[Kitty]

quote:[i]No, a nice little set of house foundations seems to get the best results for me. Which is probably why they end up as a WB, cuz the curator feels bad imposing an eval on a 1 house development!

I'd have real trouble justifying an eval on a 1 house development, unless it was on a SAM. It's not just a case of me feeling bad for the smaller developers - I have to look reasonable in the eyes of the planning inspector too. If archaeology at a site becomes prohibitvely expensive then it's up to me to justify why that development can't go ahead (normally by recommending that the local authority refuse planning permission on the grounds of archaeology). It's my reputation on the line in a situation like this. I've got teeth, don't get me wrong, but I have to be absolutely certain that I'm justified in using them before I begin asking for eval!

[mercenary]

How do you get absolutely certain? Is that not what evals are for? Do you get slated for negative results on Evals you have imposed? Madness!

An eval should be the absolute minimum on site where anything might be encountered. Once you've got evaluation info you can then make a proper decision about conditions attached to a development. A WB won't do it.

Why is it up to you to decide if archaeology is prohibitively expensive on a site and if so, not then allow the development? As I see it PPG16 requires you to see that archaeology is preserved in-situ or by record. Let market forces decide the rest! If the developer wants the development enough he will pay for the archaeological condition. If not, no development, and no problem for you.

It sounds like the reality is that you are in opposition to the planning department, and have to ridiculously justify your every decision that affects them. The same situation applies where I work, and it is the number one reason why archaeology is done badly or not at all.

What you are achieving when you apply a WB to a site where archaeology is likely, is avoiding your responsibility (presumably because you don't want to have a showdown with the planning dept) and passing it to the poor sod on the ground (me)who then has to decide whether to stop a project when the archaeology turns up. Such a stoppage costs far more than a preliminary eval and proper condition.

This situation makes me very very angry.

[Curator Kid]

I'm quite happy to recommend an evaluation on a one-house development. I don't have to do it very often, but in fact, I did this morning, on an undesignated site, based on information from the local society that medieval artefacts have been coming from the area. I'm quite happy to justify it to the planners (but rarely have to in any depth beyond a letter), and the question of whether or not it is going to cost the developers a prohibitive anount of money is not one I'm bothered about. However, I'm quite lucky in that house prices here are so ludicrous that the cost of such an evaluation would be swallowed up in most circumstances by the likely inflation of the house's selling price between the start of the development project and its completion.

It seems like you work in a different part of the country to me Kitty - possibly the north of England...? I've mentioned the apparent differences between the north & south in previous postings. I'd be interested to hear about some of what you have experienced, and the reasons why. I'm wondering if development pressures in the south mean that developers and planners have become accustomed to more stringent archaeological work programmes quicker than in the north, whilst the high selling prices in the south mean that the costs of such programmes are more readily absorbed or passed on the the eventual customer.

Discuss!

[mercenary]

quote:I'm quite happy to justify it to the planners (but rarely have to in any depth beyond a letter), and the question of whether or not it is going to cost the developers a prohibitive anount of money is not one I'm bothered about.

That's what I like to hear.

I'm sure you are right about a north/south difference, but I don't think it's related to house prices. My part of the north is almost as expensive as parts of London so your comments about costs being passed on should apply here too.

I too would like to hear a debate on this subject, and I'll even stop ranting long enough to listen.

[Curator Kid]

Maybe this subject should be a new thread as this one is about watching briefs. Let's drop it here and continue it elsewhere...

[1man1desk]

This debate seems very polarised, and I have something to say about quite a few of the comments made in this thread.

In practice, the value of a WB depends on circumstances. As a consultant working on large development and infrastructure projects, watching briefs are rarely my first choice, and I only recommend them if certain criteria can be met:
EITHER:
- previous investigation has failed to identify any significant archaeology(agreed with curator) that could be targeted by a different form of investigation, but we still think there is a risk that something is there;
OR:
- on extensive development sites, previous investigation has only identified very low-density, low-significance remains spread over a large area;
AND:
- I know that the topsoil strip/excavation method/plant to be used is such that the archaeologist has a good chance of identifying the remains.

If I can't meet these criteria, I look for another solution.

I also think that there is no point in using a WB if you don't put in explicit provisions for development to be suspended to allow investigation if something is found, and I always allow for that investigation to be to the same standard as a formal excavation. I always warn my client that this could happen and explain the potential risk that they carry if there is a WB, and tell them to allow extra time in their programme/extra money in their risk pot. I have no hesitation in stopping the client's development work and I have done so. However, part of my job is also to help the client find ways to manage the process to minimise the effect of a suspension.

On another topic raised in this debate, I never allow the archaeological contractor to go direct to the curator. This is not because I want to supress anything - I will always report any discoveries to the curator myself. It is because the client, who is paying for the work, is entitled to have their own representative involved in any discussions about what to do witht the archaeology that has been found. Some curators are inclined to give instructions to the contractor, which they are not entitled to do, and some contractors will follow those instructions without reference to the client - who would not then be obliged to pay them.

Most references to consultants in this debate assume that we are there to grind down the archaeology in the client's interest. However, most clients that I work with, once they have got a price for the job and a specified standard to which the work is to be done, want to get what they are paying for. Grief with curators is a problem for them and they prefer to avoid it.

In my experience, however, the hardest thing in my job is often trying to get the contractor to do the work to the standard specified. Curators often cannot monitor properly, because they are under-resourced, but we can do it and we do.

1man1desk

[drpeterwardle]

Welcome to 1man1desk another consultant on BAJRbaiting.

I agree with much that he says particularly about contacting curators. The point is that the client has a right to know what is on his land before anybody else. The worst case I know was when a land owner found out that there had been a significant discovery on his land when he read about it in the local newspaper.

This is particularly so if there has been a breach of a planning condition (we all know it happens).

There is the point that a consultant can usually resolve matters faster than a curator can in any event. Indeed there should be contingency arrangements in place in any event. If something crops up trully out of the blue there is a difficult situation all round. As has been mentioned PPG 16 specifically refers to this in para 31.

I would argue that their is too much recommending or advice in archaeology and not enough clear decisions. I never recommend things - that is not my job.

There is one case where watching briefs are neccessary which I am increasingly refeering to as a mooping up watching brief. On many projects I deal with there is no alternative but to be present while small amounts of ground are disturbed even after a set piece excavation. There is alway that bit of ground which could not be excavated for practical reasons or a position of a drainage run changed.

Peter

[Aine]

I've only just found this forum and I'm learning more about watching briefs than I do at Uni! It's the same old story really: get your licence then learn to drive!!
Thanks a million.

Gaia

[BAJR Host]

Too true...

The theory is fine... the summer dig...

but the reality of contract digging??


Another day another WSI?