+- 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: Digger Article (/showthread.php?tid=1794)
Digger Article - the invisible man - 18th January 2005
Alfie, I think that is exactly what we're moaning about. So they come back with a 1% sample: what do you do about it? Presumably the condition will have stated that no construction can commence until the condition have been satisfactorily fulfilled. If that is enforced it will tend to concentrate the mind. As for geophysics, would a tighter spec have helped? What does a "full survey" mean?
For goodness sake, if we get conditions worrying about on-site wheel washing facilties for construction lorries and demanding little fences of "x" radius round trees, I would think we could take archaeology a little more seriously.
Maybe archaeological conditions should be handed over to Building Control to police.
Digger Article - troll - 18th January 2005
Alfie-Remove said unit from list and ban them from your jurisdiction.Announce reasons to all-loudly.Second-remove developers planning consents-announce publicly why.Third-demand IFA pulls thumb out of ar**.
Digger Article - BAJR Host - 18th January 2005
Fear not Alfie... cos as some people know... I am also a county mountie.
A 3% sample does not cut any mustard (see the report by HAy and LAcy...oxford archaeology on the usefulness of different sampling percentages... it puts the wind up developers and contractors when you have the hard facts to hand!)
second.. I know only too well the depression of going over and over and over and over a report until it turns more into your report than the Units. I am removing Units on specific tasks on a 3 strikes principal...
so a Unit could continue to work in say survey... but told it is not capable of recording buildings... only if they consistantly and after warning (in writing) that this will happen. They have no leg to stand on... I look at teh IFA guidlines and they clearly state the contractor has to be capable of carrying out the job and should have relevant skills and personnel...
give em hell... ALGAO will stand with you ... or at least BAJR will
lets get rid of teh [:o)]
the Hotline is a start..
Digger Article - troll - 18th January 2005
Damn this is good! Too right sirs-dump the cheap and nasty.Now, onto developers-you know, the grinning demi-God types who have yet to grasp the value of being seen to be responsible grown ups with the publics property.As powerful and influential as they may be, negative publicity is a nightmare for them.Name and shame-Name and praise.I know only too well what the species can get up to.They once made the mistake of leaving files containing psychological profiles of councillors and county archaeologists in my office once.Made for a harrowing read. Gentlemen, you are at the sharp end and really, things will only change with your help.Best wishes-what can us farties in the trenches do to help you?
Digger Article - Alfie - 19th January 2005
Welcome to my world. I fear I may have sounded a bit wet with my moaning.What I should make clear is that when a unit starts bargaining with sample rates or presents third rate geophsyic results I dont accept them. I stick by my guns. The last developer to breach his archaeological planning conditions was taken to court and fined many thousands of pounds.I get what I want or I refuse planning. I was moaning about the amount of time I spend, not the end results.I expect it from developers not from archaeologists. As for banning units from my jurisdiction, legally very tricky. I am just about to produce a standards document for my area, this will go into extreme detail about what is required at every stage, the planning conditions will refer to that document. Breach it and suffer the consequences.
Digger Article - troll - 19th January 2005
Hang on, I don`t understand-slime team can be banned from working in certain areas but contractual units can`t?Are we saying that it would be against the law to stop incompetent/intentionally evasive units from destroying nationally owned resources? I find that a bit hard to grasp. Alfie, you`re not on your own,people have been chewing their own teeth out for years.People in the trenches see the detrital filth for what it really is on the ground-day in day out.Give em hell from the top down sir!
Digger Article - BAJR Host - 19th January 2005
with you 100% Alfie..... up here in Scotlandshire we are getting tougher and not taking... 'er' for an answer.
The IFA guideance document is useful to have a standard to uphold... the IFA are like being mauled by a Bulldog with rubber teeth... nasty wet patch and nothing else!
We as Curators are becoming the arbitors of 'good archaeology' can we have some cash please for this role that the IFA should be doing!
Digger Article - the invisible man - 20th January 2005
Well done Alfie, and apologies if I seemed to have a go, but that's the way I read your first post.
It is legally tricky to ban a unit, councils can't maintain an "approved" list and by the same token nor can they maintain a "black list". Theoretically they would have to demonstrate tha a given unit was not competent for the work in every case where they were put forward by a developer.
I would argue (again!
) that it is not the place of a professional body to monitor and check the work of its members, that does not happen in any other profession. They will (should) act upon complaints of gross or repeated misconduct - a subtly different kettle of fish. Checking of work, is a contractual matter and can only be done by someone pary to the contract in some way: it can only be the curator. Of course, gross misdemeanours like maching through deposits should be reported to the IFA if the unit is a member, for the IFA to take appropriate action on the unprofessional behaviour.The trouble with three strikes and out is that means that three sites have been trashed.
Naturally it also incumbent on unit's staff, if members, to behave in a professional manner too.
Digger Article - Mole - 21st January 2005
The sanction of units by monitors/ curators/ DC's(Development Control Officers) seems to be far more problematic than may be suggested here. I may have the wrong end of the stick here, after all I am but a ploppy!! but here goes...
As far as I am aware (and I may well be wrong) you cannot legaly (in England anyway) stop units working in an area if they are commisioned by a client. In theory the monitors should be able to ensure that they work to a standard but in practice this rarely seems to happen. I have heard DC's moaning about such and such a unit and its shoddy if not downright negligent behaviour over a long period of time but not one of them can actually do anything concrete about it. The only change that seems to come about is an increse in paperwork for every body (and I do understand about level playing fields but...) and the unit still continues with the bad practices. The problem seems to be that monitors have (generally) to answer to non-archaeologists who may not particularly care about the problem or see it as a minor inconvenience in a wider planning issues.
Only once (in 10 odd years) have I known a monitor try to remove a unit from a contractors list and after the unit complained they were forced to put them back on and the DC publicly appologise. When things like this happen it does not give the rest of us working in the field particular confidence in the monitoring process. While individual monitors may be trying their best for the archaeology it seems that the system onto which they are grafted (planning in most cases) works against them. As for the IFA it's claim to investigate unprofessional behaviour .......
Digger Article - Alfie - 21st January 2005
Absolutly right Mole, what do you do when you get a rogue unit in your area? The way I deal with it is to monitor the hell out of them, in some cases on a daily basis, and try and encourage good practice. On the whole it works. But they will continue to get the jobs because it is cheaper to do archaeology badly than to do it properly. Another way to deal with it is to bear in mind that they are after all just another contractor on a site. If they breach planning conditions, the developer is responsible and I will ask that a stop order is put on the development.The problem with that is that planning law is designed to enforce remedial works, ie "put that wall up again with the right mortar mix and well say no more about it" I cant very well get the Romans back in to relay the mosaic. Is it all a bluff then? a bit of a poker game? Ok so report them to the IFA, what if the are not members? Its not legal to insist that they join before they work round here because archaeology is not licensed. Like I say the best I can do is monitor the hell out of them and prevent it reaching that stage.The thing is I shouldn't have to.