Post Ex

[Manuport]

You clearly work in the wrong part of the world (ok UK); we make good monies and much more comfortably.




The Devil to pay and no pitch hot

[darksider]

So who has or holds "Primacy" for the post ex work?

[kevin wooldridge]

I knew this topic would come back eventually........

I remember a few years back (can't remember whether in this forum or [u]the other</u> one), it was suggested that whilst developers could be held legally responsible for the costs of archaeological excavation (as part of a planning consent) there was no such legal obligation to fund post-excavation archaeological 'work'.

Does anyone know whether this situation has ever been clarified. Do developers [u]have</u> to pay for post-ex work?

[gumbo]

If you ask a contractor: the lowest bid from an organisation who can complete the work, or if you ask a consultant: the best quality tender. Ideally towards the latter and in reality towards the former.

[1man1desk]

Posted by Kevin Wooldridge:

quoteo developers have to pay for post-ex work?

Yes - if working to a standard PPG 16 condition, and the WSI has been properly written.

The standard condition refers to something along the lines of 'a programme of archaeological recording works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation that has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority'.

Once the WSI is agreed, the developer is committed to providing any post-ex that is described in it.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[vulpes]

1man is quite right and any curator with sense would make certain of this at WSI stage - it's no good trying to add on bits later as the developer, contractor or consultant could (quite justifiably) refuse to play ball. The other problem is that as mitigation (and by extension post-ex) is often secured by planning condition - sometimes curators or planners agree to discharge this planning condition after the fieldwork. In this case although the WSI has not been completed they have effectively indicated that it has been fulfilled. The condition should not be discharged until post-ex is suitably advanced i.e. you have a funded publication report on your desk for approval.

Oh, another thing - really there is no such thing as preservation by record. It's a nonsense - once something is gone - it's gone, no matter how good your records are. E.g. the test of a true building record should be that it is in sufficient detail to enable you to exactly recreate the building. Rather - what we settle for is something that is near enough. It's just another bankrupt mantra we have our friends at EH to thank for - like preservation in situ - preservation of what? and for how long?. 'Replacement by Record' as touted by the east anglian curators is perhaps nearer the mark. WE are not preserving but destroying when we excavate - first year stuff really.

Oh, on a related note - it's also not unfeasible for the developer to change contractors mid excavation - seen it happen here.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by vulpesOh, on a related note - it's also not unfeasible for the developer to change contractors mid excavation - seen it happen here.

...and surely a developer isn't beholden to the same contractor who undertook the field work to also carry out post-excavation work.

In this day of every increasing specialisation, surely it would be best for the 'archaeology', if the post-excavation work was placed with the best suited 'post-excavation' specialist (which might be the original field contracting unit, but then again might not).

I mean after all Bernard Matthews and Delia Smith live near each other in East Anglia, and you might go to one or the other for certain turkey-based services, but not necessarily for all of your turkey requirements (a Christmas-inspired metaphor I feel may come back to haunt me!!)

[historic building]

My standard archaeological condition is:
Condition: No development shall take place within the proposed development site until the applicant, or their agents or their successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted to the planning authority and approved in writing.

I generally recommend the discharge of a condition when a MAP II assessment has been received together with a letter from the contractor confirming that the developer has reached a legal agreement with them to sufficiently fund the post-excavation works detailed within the assessment. The detail of the production of the assessment is specified within the WSI. I take the confirmation that the unit has reached a legal agreement to complete the works detailed in the MAP II assessment to be the full implementation of the WSI. I have checked that with the various boroughs legal departments and they have all confirmed that it is reasonable.

The key question here is what is development defined as. In most cases, and in most Section 106 agreements development is defined as the commencement of works on site - demolition clearance etc. This does provide an entirely separate set of fun and games as in most cases you have to demolish the building to undertake the archaeological works. Various legal departments have given me a good ‘dunno’ on this one. I am waiting for a site to go belly up to see what will happen, quite exciting really.

With the waiting list to get stuff into print in this part of the world, if the commencement of development works (without taking into account any of the fun and games over legal agreements) the majority would be renewing their permissions, possibly twice, and trying to wack extra floors on or change things each time. Only discharging once I have, even a publication text, is just not an option. All the new buildings would just look horribly old fashioned if this was the case.

I usually have very few turkey requirements.

[vulpes]

That's one way of approaching it HB. But you can take a two-stage approach to discharge. Where you provide the developer with a letter confirming that the on-site archaeological works have been satisfactorily completed - so there is no impediment to the development commencing but that the condition will be fully discharged once reporting is complete or near completion (i.e. written, approved and funded). If you like: Practical discharge and Full discharge. As assessments can take at least months to prepare I'm not sure that delaying development once the fieldwork has been completed would be that easy to explain to a developer.

Your condition is pretty much the standard PPG16 clause. Oh further to the issue of publication PPG16 is clear (para 25): 'Such agreements should also provide for the subsequent publication of the
results of the excavation'.

Although this refers to S106 agreements it should also apply to conditions etc.

[monitor lizard]

Hiya

I tend to do what Vulpes has suggested for big sites (excavations) that will lead to a post-ex assessment and further. To date (6+years) have not had a problem with securing publication on that basis, and fingers crossed will continue. Tend to write a letter at the end of the site works saying that I have no [u]archaeological</u> objection to construction/demolition commencing (in case there are other reasons lurking) which at least lets them carry on building. And then, as HB says, the assessment has a UPD and a date by which it will be completed. As I said, have not yet had reason to test the discharge with those caveats attached. In theory, if they bottle out of the publication, the condition which was deemed satisifed on xxx being done, can be revisited if xxx is NOT done, but I pity the enforcement offer who tries to take that on...

I personally find the PPG16 wording about post-ex very very weak. It really is focused on getting stuff out of the ground, and certainly could be updated to include my favourite word 'dissemination' which to my mind includes archiving and non-paper based publication, but I would hope that was tied up in the UPD. Can't recall any mention of archiving at all in PPG16 - but then that opens another big can of worms (Kent, anyone?)

ML