Archaeological contractors and the county archaeologist
Your contractor writes the written scheme of investigation; the council's archaeological adviser approves it. Keeping those two roles apart is what keeps archaeology off the critical path.
Archaeological contractor selection on a planning application involves two different archaeologists with two different jobs, and confusing them causes most of the programme trouble on sites with buried remains. Your contractor works for you. The local authority's archaeological adviser, usually a county archaeologist or a Historic Environment Record officer, works for the council and advises on whether your evidence is adequate.
The second one approves the written scheme of investigation. The first one writes it. A developer who treats the curator as a free consultant, or treats their own contractor as the decision maker, will lose weeks.
Who advises the council on archaeology
Most local planning authorities do not employ their own archaeologist. They buy advice from a county council service, a shared service or an individual adviser, who maintains the Historic Environment Record and comments on applications affecting known or potential archaeology.
That adviser is the curator. Their role is to advise the authority on the archaeological interest of the site, on whether the submitted evidence is sufficient, and on the scope and standard of any further work. Historic England advises separately on scheduled monuments and on development affecting nationally important remains.
Two practical consequences follow. The curator's recommendation will usually become the condition, so the time to influence the scope is while they are forming the view rather than after the decision notice. And the curator cannot design your mitigation for you, because advising the authority and acting for the applicant are different positions.
A pre-application conversation involving your contractor and the curator together is the single most useful thing you can arrange on a site with archaeological potential. It is also where an over-wide trenching specification gets narrowed.
Registered organisations and individual accreditation
The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists operates a registration scheme for organisations, which requires compliance with its standards and guidance and submits the organisation to periodic inspection. Individual membership runs through accredited grades, with the higher grades reflecting responsibility and experience.
Most curators expect fieldwork to be carried out by a registered organisation, or by an organisation able to demonstrate equivalent standards, with a named project manager holding an appropriate individual accreditation. Some authorities state that expectation in their local validation requirements or in a supplementary document.
Ask three questions before appointing:
- Is the organisation registered, and is the registration current?
- Who is the named project manager, what is their accreditation grade, and will they be on site?
- Has the organisation worked in this authority's area and with this curator before?
The third question matters more than it looks. A contractor who knows the local period framework, the museum's archive requirements and the curator's expectations will produce a written scheme that gets approved first time.
The written scheme of investigation and its approval
The written scheme of investigation sets out what will be done, how, by whom, and to what standard. It covers the archaeological background, the aims and objectives, the methodology, the recording system, the specialist provision, the post-excavation programme, the archive deposition arrangements and the staffing.
It is normally required by condition and approved in writing by the authority on the curator's advice. Treat it as a document with a review cycle rather than a formality: a scheme written without reference to the regional research framework or without a named receiving museum will come back.
Archive deposition is the clause that causes trouble late. Museums have variable capacity to accept archives, and some have closed to new deposits. Confirm the receiving museum and its requirements before the scheme is submitted, because the alternative arrangements take time to agree.
The desk-based work that precedes all of this is the Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, and where the curator concludes that further information is needed before determination, that leads to an Archaeological Field Evaluation rather than straight to a condition.
Separating evaluation from mitigation appointments
Evaluation establishes what is there. Mitigation deals with it. Appointing for both at once in a single lump sum is common and usually a mistake, because the scope of mitigation cannot be known until the evaluation reports.
A better structure appoints for the desk-based assessment and evaluation, with mitigation priced separately once the results are known, using an agreed schedule of rates so the second appointment does not require a new procurement. Keep the option to appoint a different organisation for mitigation, even where you expect to continue with the same one.
Where a watching brief is the agreed mitigation, the cost depends on the groundworks programme rather than on the archaeology, which makes it a risk to manage rather than a price to fix. Agree how standby time and extensions are charged before the groundworks start.
Why the curator is not your consultant
Developers sometimes ring the county archaeologist for advice on how to satisfy the condition. The answer will be polite and unhelpful, because the curator's duty is to the authority.
Three things follow from that. Correspondence with the curator forms part of the application file and may be disclosable. A position taken in an email can be relied upon by the authority later. And a disagreement about scope is best handled through your own consultant setting out a reasoned alternative methodology, rather than through direct negotiation about what you are willing to pay for.
Where a genuine professional disagreement exists about the scale of evaluation needed, the productive route is a written technical response from your contractor addressing the archaeological reasoning, with reference to the regional research framework and to the results of nearby investigations. Curators respond to archaeology, not to programme pressure. Where it comes to swapping advisers mid-application, the practical steps are the same as those in changing consultant during a live planning application.
Programme risk in archaeological conditions
Archaeology sits on the critical path more often than any other technical discipline, for three reasons. Evaluation needs access and sometimes needs crops off the ground. Remains of real interest convert a watching brief into a full excavation. And post-excavation work, including specialist analysis and publication, continues long after the groundworks are finished.
Build the programme accordingly:
- evaluation before determination where the curator asks for it, with four to eight weeks for fieldwork, reporting and comment on a modest site
- a decision point after evaluation, where the mitigation strategy and its cost are settled
- mitigation fieldwork integrated with the groundworks programme rather than preceding it where possible
- post-excavation assessment, analysis, archive and publication as a separate phase with its own budget line
Preservation in situ is worth considering seriously rather than treating as a constraint. Redesigning a foundation layout, raising levels or moving a building to avoid important remains is frequently less expensive than excavating them, and it also answers the policy test more directly.
Setting the contract and the contingency
Price the known work and carry a contingency for the unknown. The honest position is that nobody can price mitigation before evaluation, and a fixed price covering both is either padded or will be revisited.
In the contract, pin down the daily rate structure, the basis for standby charges, who pays for extensions caused by unexpected remains, the specialist provision and whether it is a provisional sum, the publication commitment, and the archive deposition cost including any museum charge.
Where a building rather than buried archaeology is affected, the equivalent document is Historic Building Recording to the appropriate level, and the same separation applies between the recording specification and the person who approves it. Reviewers able to sign off specialist drafts can be approached through the professional directory.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. Councils usually expect archaeological work to be carried out by a suitably qualified organisation to recognised standards, and professional review is strongly advised. Requirements vary between authorities, so check the local validation list and the curator's expectations before fixing a scope or a budget.
PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.
Frequently asked questions
What does a county archaeologist do on a planning application?
They advise the local planning authority on the archaeological interest of the site, whether the submitted evidence is sufficient, and the scope and standard of any further work. Their recommendation usually becomes the condition. They act for the council, so they cannot design or advise on your mitigation strategy.
Must an archaeological contractor be CIfA registered?
Most curators expect fieldwork by an organisation registered with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, or one able to demonstrate equivalent standards, with a named project manager holding an appropriate accreditation grade. Some authorities state that expectation in their local validation requirements or supplementary guidance.
What does a written scheme of investigation contain?
The archaeological background, aims and objectives, methodology, recording system, specialist provision, post-excavation programme, archive deposition arrangements and staffing. It is normally required by condition and approved in writing by the authority on the curator's advice, so it needs the regional research framework and a named receiving museum.
Should evaluation and mitigation be appointed together?
Usually not. The scope of mitigation cannot be known until the evaluation reports, so a single lump sum is either padded or revisited. Appoint for the desk-based assessment and evaluation, with mitigation priced separately against an agreed schedule of rates once the results are available.
Can redesigning the scheme avoid archaeological excavation?
Often, and it deserves serious consideration. Preservation in situ by changing a foundation layout, raising levels or relocating a building is frequently less expensive than full excavation, and it answers the policy test on nationally and locally important remains more directly than recording them does.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.