LIVING WITH THE PAST

few weeks ago John Laing workers uncovered 30 skeletons at Stratford, east London, during construction of a train depot for the Jubilee Line Extension. In this instance the medieval bones will not hold up construction work, but that is not always the case.

Discovering unexpected archaeological remains can almost be as much of a problem as unforeseen ground conditions for contractors. Tunnel-boring machines can get clogged up with ancient timbers; 6ft walls can suddenly be encountered 20ft underground. Throughout the British Isles, all manner of ancient artefacts lie in wait for the unsuspecting contractor.

For archaeologists it has been frustrating to see so much material disappear under concrete and brick. But the profile of archaeology has risen along with other environmental concerns in the last few years. The Government is trying to establish a balance between the need to preserve the country's heritage and the need to develop.

The main vehicle for this is PPG16 Archaeology and Planning introduced in November 1990. This gives all ancient remains a measure of protection, if only temporarily. If archaeological remains are found on site, work has to stop while the remains are inspected and their worth evaluated.

To try to avoid last-minute discoveries, PPG16 advises developers to undertake an archaeological evaluation of any potential site, before applying for planning permission. PPG16 also insists that if developments do go ahead on sites with archaeological remains, then as much of the remains as possible must be preserved in situ.

The changes in the planning guidance have led to an explosion of archaeological activity. Archaeologists are now regularly taken on by developers, mineral extractors and contractors as consultants to assess the potential archaeological importance of work sites. Both archaeologists and contractors agree that relationships have greatly improved since 1990.

However, the changes have not solved all the old conflicts and have, perhaps inevitably, brought some new problems with them. Maurice Webb, director of industry and environmental affairs at the FCEC, says: 'We find that the greatest problem is where local authorities get involved and don't have the resources to do the job quickly. Then the work drags on and you get delays. The contractor's programme slips and he can incur heavy penalties.'

The problem, according to Webb, is that in a lot of cases there is no specific timetable for archaeological research once material is turned up on site. The FCEC is making representations to the DoT and DoE to try to establish a timescale for archaeological research.

Mineral extractors can also find themselves running into difficulties on occasions. Steven Fidgett of the Sand And Gravel Association's planning executive says: 'Archaeology is an issue that is increasing in its impact and importance. We have a lot of sympathy with it as an environmental concern, but inevitably it can lead to conflict.'

One problem is that local authorities sometimes demand quite extensive archaeological investigation before considering other issues in the planning application. 'There is no point spending all that money on an archaeological investigation, if the planning application is then turned down later for other reasons. Investigations should be done after all the other planning considerations have been passed,' says Fidgett.

The other worry is that when a planning application is favourably considered, but has an archaeological constraint placed on it, operators can sometimes feel they have signed a blank cheque. 'In most cases the archaeological work is quite acceptable, but on occasions digs can run on and on and cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. And the finds may only be of local or regional importance,' says Fidgett.

Operators can certainly get their fingers burnt if they are not clear about the archaeological risks before purchase. One mineral company bought the mineral rights to an area, but signed a document agreeing to preserve any archaeological remains. Remains were found in part of the site in a very good state of preservation, buried beneath alluvium. It turned out that the cost of excavating and preserving the remains was more than the value of the gravel to be extracted. The company abandoned that part of the site.

But if archaeologists sometimes frustrate contractors, the converse is also true. It is not unknown for contractors to remain discreetly silent when it suits them.

In the mid-1960s a new development uncovered the missing west wall of Roman Lincoln. The story was splashed on the front page of the local newspaper. A certain retired contractor was not in the least bit surprised. He had found the wall in the gardens of Victoria Terrace back in the 1930s while laying gas mains. But instead of reporting the major find, he just bent the pipes over the wall and covered it up again. The suspicion remains that contractors tend to do much the same thing today.

Another problem for archaeologists is when they have only a watching brief for a site.

John Oxley, principal archaeologist at York City Council, says: 'When you have a watching brief there is a great potential for conflict, if the archaeologist's brief is not set out in the contractor's contract with the client. Details of access and times can only really be resolved by the individuals on site.

'It may be down to a foreman to agree, or not, to move his men off a certain area and let the archaeologist record what has been found. On a full excavation you usually have a much clearer contractual relationship,' says Oxley.

George Lambrick, deputy director of Oxford Archaeological Unit, says: 'On watching briefs the detailed working practices need to be worked out and understood. The objectives and methods of contractors and archaeologists are so different. It helps enormously if you have very clear agreement about access and can make the most of any flexibility in the contractor's programme.'

Public concern over the need to preserve archaeology has risen in the last few years, along with environmental issues generally. In 1988 there was a public outcry in York when a new development on the site of the former Queen's Hotel destroyed important archaeological remains.

York City Council realised it had to reconcile the need for development and the need to preserve archaeological remains. So the council and English Heritage commissioned Ove Arup to find a solution. Arup came back with a set of proposals which said it was possible to build any type of building in York, given the prevailing ground conditions and height restrictions (five-storeys), and still preserve 95% of the archaeology in situ.

The solution was to use regularly spaced case bored piles, which could core or chisel through remains. The council accepted the proposals and incorporated them into the local draft plan.

PPG16 and York-style compromises have helped to reduce the conflict between the need to develop and the need to preserve. Archaeologists are relieved that more of our ancient heritage is being preserved.

'Things have improved dramatically since 1990,' says Andrew Lawson, director of Wessex Archaeology. 'Before then it wasn't clear how archaeology should be regarded and there was mistrust and conflict, but now PPG16 makes it very clear that archaeology must be taken into account.'

Builders now have much clearer guidelines and can plan ahead accordingly. Richard Morris, director of the Council for British Archaeology, says: 'The key to effective success and good relations between contractors and archaeologists is good long term planning. Archaeology is slow, painstaking and labour intensive. The further ahead of the construction work you can plan for excavation, the better. Of course, you will always get circumstances where that can't or doesn't happen.'

In some cases development has been allowed to go ahead with the proviso that the remains are not only preserved, but remain visible. The most celebrated example of this is the new building planned for London's Guildhall Yard East. Here, the building's design had to be changed to incorporate part of the remains of the Roman amphitheatre within the foundations of the new building. Visitors will be able to view the remains from a gantry above.

More often, development goes ahead after delay to allow a rescue dig to be done before construction begins. This is happening at No 1 Poultry in the City of London. Planning permission was granted before the advent of PPG16 and only a watching brief was required. However, the developers, Altstadtbau, have agreed to contribute œ2 million towards the cost of excavation, which will last nearly a year.

The main contractor, Laing, will put in the foundation slab and work above it, while the archaeologists work beneath it, using the holes made for the lift shafts to extract the spoil. Once the dig is finished, Laing will put the cellars in.

œ2 million is a considerable sum and indicates the scale of the costs involved on a major excavation. BACMI released a three-year study in March this year, which examined the cost of archaeology to the industry between 1991 and 1993. The total was over œ10 million.

The cost of funding pre-application archaeological evaluations and of funding post-permission surveys and rescue digs amounted to œ2.2 million. The cost of delays caused by rescue digs was around œ110,000, and the cost in terms of lost aggregate sales of mineral sterilised because of the need to safeguard archaeological remains amounted to œ8.4 million.

Roads Minister Robert Key was heard lamenting the increased cost of archaeology to the DoT earlier this year. The Department's costs have risen from œ329,000 in 1989-90 to œ2.2 million last year, possibly reaching œ3 million this year. However, as archaeologists pointed out to Key during a seminar on the subject in May, the rise in costs is a direct result of the Government's own polluter pays policy. Before the introduction of polluter pays, the DoT had usually managed to get someone else to pay for the work.

But there is a genuine concern on both sides of the fence to get value for money. Naturally, not everyone agrees on what value means. CBA director Richard Morris wants the money spent on digs, which are likely to enrich the public and advance human knowledge.

'I'm worried that patronage has partly switched from the state to the developer, whose agendas are very different. Things could get slapdash with cheap jobs and be archaeologically uninteresting. It's not just another planning hoop to be jumped through,' says Morris.

For their part, mineral operators and contractors are concerned at the restrictions imposed by some of the current legislation. Ian Cromie, assistant planning officer at BACMI, says: 'Sometimes the planning restrictions are overprotective and we are spending money on material that does not merit preservation.'

Archaeologists do not necessarily disagree with this. Many would prefer funds to be spent on truly important sites rather than spread over a wider area. John Oxley says: 'There has been a lot done in archaeology over the last 20 years. It's time to take stock. We need to figure out what we want to know and then pick our sites carefully.' Music to the industry's ears perhaps? The boom in archaeology since the introduction of PPG16 in 1990 has led to considerable commercial success for some archaeological contractors. Some now have turnovers of up to œ1 million and bid for contracts like any other consultant or contractor. Two of the biggest names are Wessex Archaeology based in Salisbury and Oxford Archaeological Unit.

Wessex Archaeology is a registered charity, which is undertaking 170 projects in 1993-94, a rise of 36% on 1992-93 and 50% up on the year before. About a third of these are evaluations of sites to assess their archaeological potential, of which about half are desk top studies. About 75 of the jobs are advance works. Only ten of the 170 jobs are full scale excavations. Director Andrew Lawson says the average cost of an assessment is about œ1,500 and œ5,500 for an evaluation.

Oxford Archaeological Unit was founded 21 years ago, originally concentrating on work in the Oxford area. It started to expand in 1976 and now works over most of Britain and occasionally abroad. Deputy director George Lambrick says: 'We work on a wide variety of projects covering monuments, historic buildings and landscapes. We do a lot of work on road schemes carrying out specialist studies for environmental assessments. We advise developers, contractors and mineral operators on the implications of what their developments might be.'