+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Uo1 thread (/showthread.php?tid=1692)
Uo1 thread - kevin wooldridge - 10th August 2009
The question of copyright in commissioned work is a potential minefield that both parties should seek to affirm by contract before commencement of the work.
Which may well happen much more often if the proposed new Planning Policy Guidance goes through. I can well imagine that if it becomes a statutory obligation to report the results of an excavation before full planning permission is granted, the legal representatives of many developers will be insistent that the developer retains a form of control of the 'archive', including copyright, at least until the result is delivered....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Uo1 thread - Unitof1 - 11th August 2009
I cant see where the proposed new guidance would introduce anything about copyright, particularly from a one man band point of view. (copyright is used four times but only by the crown for the document? ha, ha)
Lets say the proposals did, so the developer had through some contract all copyright rights but they have paid for the post ex but the dodgy units had done a runner with the dosh. The only way that the copyright would be of help to the developer is if the so called authorities would accept the archive as satisfying the condition. I think that they should. In away it is the test of why we record and excavate in the way we do. The archive is intended to be used to write all manner of reports. One of the things that gets me about a lot of reports are that they mask the fact that the actual archive is total rubbish, if it exist at all.
Whats more to the point is that in as sole trader set up I can be hounded for ever to produce the report, not only by the developer but by the conditions of the ifa. Maybe a developer is much better off employing a named archaeologist....(rather than a counsoleltant)
Uo1 thread - Unitof1 - 12th August 2009
Quote:quoteerhaps YellowPete should be given his/her own thread too?
YP welcome here anytime- New PPS Consultation Document- had a few guest appearences, all basicaly said sweet fanny all. keep it up YP
Uo1 thread - Unitof1 - 13th August 2009
HLF fund heritage
http://www.hlf.org.uk/English/MediaCentre/Archive/Funding+for+heritage+skills.htm
http://www.hlf.org.uk/NR/exeres/08486B1A-97B6-4507-93B2-CDF5AB0F80EE,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published
doe anybody know what the ifa places are?
Uo1 thread - Unitof1 - 13th August 2009
Monty
Quote:quote:I agree totally...very encouraging ......and something all the IfA bashers should read !!
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/ALGAOFAMEIfA23-03-09.pdf
I don?t see whats wrong with discharging conditions with just an archive but then I just like to dig. I think that most of the post excavation should be done and paid for by academics if they can be bothered some time in the future at their leisure. Surely FAME should be arguing that they have spent the money on digging and dont have much if any for the post ex but that some archive level is adequate Is Bedford toxic yet? Come on curators discharge on an archive, it would definatly create more digging jobs.
Quote:quote:? there is pressure to discharge conditions early, eg before post-excavation work is
completed, especially as banks are refusing to release second-phase lending until firstphase
conditions are discharged
? one authority has prematurely discharged a condition such that the developer has
reneged on px funding and is potentially defending a charge of negligence
? some LPAs are prepared to discharge on the basis of a separate legal agreement
between the developer and the archaeologist
oh the presure, its so heavey,i am so important, so is my pension
I would much rather that the administrator chucked all the diggers hard work in the skip than discharge the condition, because standards are so important arnt they. Save the archive, its a pidgin..
Uo1 thread - Unitof1 - 18th August 2009
Hay misty
was there anywork at this place
http://planning.westwiltshire.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=KKR3HYRN5O000
Uo1 thread - Misty - 18th August 2009
This developer usually uses large units for their work, but thanks for the heads-up. If they do any digging I can go and peer over the hedge at them!
Uo1 thread - Steven - 18th August 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Unitof1
MontyQuote:quote:I agree totally...very encouraging ......and something all the IfA bashers should read !!
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/ALGAOFAMEIfA23-03-09.pdf
I don?t see whats wrong with discharging conditions with just an archive but then I just like to dig. I think that most of the post excavation should be done and paid for by academics if they can be bothered some time in the future at their leisure. Surely FAME should be arguing that they have spent the money on digging and dont have much if any for the post ex but that some archive level is adequate Is Bedford toxic yet? Come on curators discharge on an archive, it would definatly create more digging jobs.
Quote:quote:? there is pressure to discharge conditions early, eg before post-excavation work is
completed, especially as banks are refusing to release second-phase lending until firstphase
conditions are discharged
? one authority has prematurely discharged a condition such that the developer has
reneged on px funding and is potentially defending a charge of negligence
? some LPAs are prepared to discharge on the basis of a separate legal agreement
between the developer and the archaeologist
oh the presure, its so heavey,i am so important, so is my pension
I would much rather that the administrator chucked all the diggers hard work in the skip than discharge the condition, because standards are so important arnt they. Save the archive, its a pidgin..
Hi
I don't think this IFA note makes legal sense! If a condition is discharged on the basis of a WSI (which includes post-excavation) then it is legally enforceable! The fact that the condition has been "discharged" doesn't mean anything. The developer still has to carry out the work or they will be breeching planning permission. Its exactly the same as agreeing a landscape scheme to discharge a condition, until the scheme has actually been implemented the condition still applies.
Steven
Uo1 thread - historic building - 18th August 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Steven
If a condition is discharged on the basis of a WSI (which includes post-excavation) then it is legally enforceable! The fact that the condition has been "discharged" doesn't mean anything.
Entirely correct. I have started requesting timetables for completion of assessments to be included in the WSI as it does give enforcement teams something concrete to follow.
I do think the IFA need to learn a bit of planning before they start advising on it. To be honest I think a lot of contractors need to learn stuff as well, not least what a reserve matters application means.
Uo1 thread - BAJR Host - 18th August 2009
Not so much a bash... more a corrective tap.
We all need them, what is important is how we deal with it.
Defensively, Aggressively or Agreeably :face-huh:
<hr>Constant development is the law of life, and a man who always tries to maintain his dogmas in order to appear consistent drives himself into a false position.
Mohandas Gandhi