Prepared and maintained by Cambridge Development Archaeology for development teams working across Cambridge and Cambridgeshire.
Sources, review dates and corrections →Last source review: .
Content updated: .
The next decision
The planning requirement and the contract’s cost allocation are different questions. Developers commonly fund required work, but the land contract, building contract and archaeology appointment determine who bears each agreed cost and variation.
Test the allocation at each transaction
Purchaser example: an acquisition appraisal carries provisional mitigation risk until evaluation provides evidence. Agree how new evidence affects the price or retained obligations with the transaction advisers. Promoter example: define which assessment/application outputs are included and what passes to the eventual developer.
Contractor example: distinguish a fixed, issued archaeology scope from provisional work and employer-retained risk. Identify who instructs additional work, who supplies plant/welfare and who funds post-excavation after site handover. These are illustrative allocation questions, not legal interpretations of your contract.
Direct appointment can improve continuity where the client retains programme control; a subcontract appointment may suit other procurement structures. Compare accountability, instructions, interfaces and completion obligations rather than treating one route as universally best.
Content updated .
The planning position
Where development will damage archaeological remains, the planning system expects the applicant to record and understand them first, at the applicant's expense. That obligation is imposed through conditions on the permission, or occasionally through a planning obligation, and it runs with the permission rather than with any particular party.
There is no general public fund for this work on commercial schemes. Grant support exists only in narrow circumstances and should never be assumed in an appraisal.
Landowner, promoter or housebuilder
In practice the allocation is a commercial negotiation, and it depends on when the work is done.
- Pre-application assessment and evaluation is often funded by the promoter or option holder, because it de-risks the planning application
- Where a site is sold with permission, mitigation cost normally transfers to the purchaser and should be reflected in the land price
- On conditional contracts, who funds evaluation — and who owns the resulting reports — is worth expressing explicitly
- On serviced-parcel disposals, the party carrying out enabling works usually carries the archaeology with it
Where it sits in the build contract
Archaeology should have a distinct scope, programme and instruction route. Direct appointment and subcontract delivery are procurement options; the suitable route depends on accountability and construction interfaces.
Direct appointment matters for two reasons. The archaeological obligation is owed to the planning authority, not to the contractor, so the developer needs an unbroken line to the specialist who discharges it. And where archaeology overruns, a direct appointment keeps the conversation about method and evidence rather than about preliminaries and delay claims.
Handling the uncertainty honestly
The reason archaeological cost causes friction is that nobody can fix it before the ground is tested. The professional response is to stage it: assess, evaluate, then scope mitigation against actual results, with a provisional sum carried until the evaluation report exists.
A mitigation price without adequate evidence depends on assumptions. Identify risk allowances, exclusions and variation triggers before relying on it.
The budget lines that are usually missed
The visible field team is only one part of the archaeological obligation. Plant and welfare may sit in the main contract while specialist analysis, finds conservation, environmental work, archive deposition and publication sit in the archaeological appointment. A budget that captures only fieldwork will look complete until the report is due.
- Desk-based work, HER data and pre-application evaluation
- Plant, welfare, fencing, haul routes, spoil movement and survey control
- Fieldwork supervision, recording, finds processing and environmental sampling
- Post-excavation assessment, specialist analysis and scientific dating where required
- Archive preparation, deposition charges, publication and final condition-discharge reporting
- Programme exposure where access, approvals or construction interfaces change
A contract checklist before land or works are transferred
Record who commissions each stage, who owns and can rely on the reports, who provides plant and welfare, who carries authority liaison, how variations are instructed, what completion means and who funds post-excavation obligations after the land or parcel changes hands.
Where a site is phased, allocate archaeology by defined work area rather than by a broad promise to clear the whole site. That makes cost, handover and responsibility visible at each parcel release.
What we can tell you early
The condition, impact plans and available reports let a review identify the next evidence and scope decisions. Request a site-specific allowance with its assumptions and unresolved stages stated; contract allocation needs the relevant professional advice.