10th September 2008, 02:19 PM
Posted by Historic Building:
It may be true if you are dealing with a very large, very high-cost/high profit development, such as a city centre office block. However, for the 'one-house develoment' originally mentioned by Curator Kid such an excavation would cost more than the whole of the rest of the development costs, and usually more than the capital value of the finished development. For many other developers, including small to medium-sized commercial developments, the archaeological work might be one of the largest single items on their cost sheet. Going to the other end of the scale of development size, I once saw statistics showing that on Irish road schemes, archaeological work cost an average of 4% of the total construction budget. That is a very substantial proportion.
My point, however, is not to say that developers should not pay for 'preservation by record' operations. Under the 'polluter pays' principle, if you can't afford to protect the environment then you can't afford to do the development, so prohibitive costs are not an issue.
My point really relates to evaluations, since that is what Curator Kid was talking about in the original post. These are not archaeological investigations in their own right - they are supposed to be a quick look to see if there is anything there that might need investigating (or preservation). I don't believe it is reasonable to impose costs so high at that stage, when you don't even know whether there would be an archaeological impact, that the developer has to abandon the proposal because they can't afford the pre-planning investigation. Bear in mind that not everyone is making a profit here - sometimes these are houses being built as the 'developers' own home.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:Considering the many financial obligations on development imposed through legal agreeements even a detailed, lengthy urban excavation represents a very small outlay.I am afraid that is not realistic at all.
It may be true if you are dealing with a very large, very high-cost/high profit development, such as a city centre office block. However, for the 'one-house develoment' originally mentioned by Curator Kid such an excavation would cost more than the whole of the rest of the development costs, and usually more than the capital value of the finished development. For many other developers, including small to medium-sized commercial developments, the archaeological work might be one of the largest single items on their cost sheet. Going to the other end of the scale of development size, I once saw statistics showing that on Irish road schemes, archaeological work cost an average of 4% of the total construction budget. That is a very substantial proportion.
My point, however, is not to say that developers should not pay for 'preservation by record' operations. Under the 'polluter pays' principle, if you can't afford to protect the environment then you can't afford to do the development, so prohibitive costs are not an issue.
My point really relates to evaluations, since that is what Curator Kid was talking about in the original post. These are not archaeological investigations in their own right - they are supposed to be a quick look to see if there is anything there that might need investigating (or preservation). I don't believe it is reasonable to impose costs so high at that stage, when you don't even know whether there would be an archaeological impact, that the developer has to abandon the proposal because they can't afford the pre-planning investigation. Bear in mind that not everyone is making a profit here - sometimes these are houses being built as the 'developers' own home.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished