Posted By Colin Anglin
I had a recent situation where archaeological investigations took place on a site, between demolition and construction phases. The archaeologists were the only people working on the site, the PC had not yet been given access.
Question - considering that the works exceeded 30 days and that excavation was involved, would this be notifiable under the CDM Regs

Any experiences please

Regards

Colin Anglin

Posted By steve e ashton
Colin:

A messy one unfortunately and there is no definitive answer. Under the '94 Regs, the ACoP explicitly excluded archaeological investigations from the definition of construction work. This exclusion has not been carried forward to the '07 Regs - so its now down to the individual client / contractor (and cdmc where appropriate) to decide.

Several major contracts have been able to include the archaeo team in the overall project - so the PC has effectively taken responsibility for their activities.

Other contracts, the archaeo work has been notified as part of the preliminary survey and GI works. On at least one infrastructure project the archaeo studies were deliberately ommitted from the project. But that was a 'surface feature' survey and did not include excavation.

For my own money, it is worth taking the archaeo team (and enviro team) surveyors as part of the overall project team, and including them in the project briefing / reporting structure, if only to make sure they do not begin trenching adjacent to coring rigs, or digging deep unsupported trenches in school playing fields etc... Manage the risks from their activity in the same way as you manage the risks from any work involving excavation - service diversions etc.

Hope this helps a little.

Steve

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Still disagree that it is construction work and if so who is the client? It is not the construction client requiring the work. What benefit is gained notifying an archeological dig to the HSE as a construction project?

Certainly they need safe working procedures but they are simply digging holes in the ground and have their own procedures etc for their work does not make them a construction operation. It is not a necessary preparatory operation from the perspective of the project it is an action required by such as English Heritage in order to gather information for their own purposes not the preparation of the site.

Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Fine let EH or the LA arrange the dig but why are we so desparate to keep it under the control of the PC for the project? It is much cleaner to allocate the archeologists their own areas and hand control over to them.

I read the definitions to mean that work actually necessary for the structure to be built form part of the preparatory works. Archeological work is not strictly necessary for the erection of the structure. Keep it separate is my view and I would use the old acop as the evidence of good practice. Simply because the drafters omitted the statement in the new acop does not mean that the work is now construction.

If we are to say it is construction then notify the archeologist as the Principal Contractor for his own project and allow him to do the work in his own controlled area segregated from the construction - as it should be. I certainly do not want archeologists in my constructrion areas.

Bob

Posted By David Knight
What people interpret as Archaeology bears very little resemblance to what they do. The key is noting and understanding the difference between a rural academic site and an urban commercial site. The latter may involve multiphase demolition, deep excavation, harmful substances, contaminated land, phased release etc. The risks presented by the activity (which is surely what CDM intended to limit) would be best controlled by following the structured process set out in the regs. Archaeology is no longer one man and his dog supervising a bunch of unpaid volunteers (if you select the right contractor that is) but a professional and commercial concern in the world of construction planning and tendering.

As to the discussion thread as to who is the client, this concerns me - Archaeological excavation over a determined area of a construction site is not conducted for fun, pleasure or at the indulgence of the developer but as a stipulated planning consent permitting the development. This is regulated by local authority or if in London by English Heritage. They are no more the client as the HSE or EA.

With some limited knowledge of the industry (25 years) I would argue that reg 2(b) applies to some, if not most sites.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Except the old acop had made specific mention that it wwas not construction. Although omitted in the new acop the current regulations are virtually identical in wording to the previous which suggests previous interpretations hold.

Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
The point of CDM for me is to avoid undertaking construction work in a non construction environment except where the risks can be limiteed and the nature of the work permits. If the archeology is not ring fenced then that is a fault of the client and his team of advisers. We should not be mixing the two. If construction work is required then undertake it with the archeologists excluded and do not confuse the two.

If you mix the two then one is required to say that the archeologists are likely not to be competent re CDM and are we therefore to involve a lot of bureacracy for the sake of it. There are enough risks in construction without having to be concerned with those who are not construction workers. Where is the Archeology CSCS card?:-)

Bob