Increased Production

The implementation of Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 16 in England in 1990 (and equivalent statutory instruments elsewhere in the UK) heralded a massive change in British archaeology. The guidance – for such is what it is, rather than being a mandatory regulation – shifted the onus of payment for archaeological works from central government (in the shape of the Department of the Environment) to the developer, following the ‘polluter pays’ principle (see House of Commons 1990). The implicit intention was to make the development of archaeologically important sites prohibitively expensive through the normal operation of market forces (ie monetarist economic policy; Maunder et al 2000, chapter 10) with a presumption in favour of preservation in situ (see Department of the Environment 1990; Cullingworth and Nadin 2002, 235; White 2011). The first aim, regarding where funding comes from, has been achieved, but the second has not and has certainly rarely been applied in respect to sites with burial remains (White 2011). Archaeological contractors do not initiate archaeological projects; they are there to respond, on behalf of the client (ie developer), to any archaeological investigations deemed necessary by ‘the monitor’, that is, the county archaeologist based within the planning department of the relevant county council, or, in the case of London, advisers working across council departments. Such investigations may include desk-based assessments as well as on-site and post-excavation works, and require the production of a report on the findings.