Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
17th April 2009, 02:53 PM
As a curator I would agree that the critical phrase here is "must be led by a member of the IFA or IHBC or EQUIVILANT"
We do not require that a company be led by a full member of the IFA (MIFA) just that the overall manager of the work (Project Manager) be of equivalent expertise, i.e. could be a MIFA if they wanted but chooses not to.
We would never force someone to join an such an organisation unless and until they achieve actual chartered status. Membership is a matter for the individual but to run an archaeological unit that tenders for work set by planning conditions it is reasonable (remember that word from ppg16?) to expect that someone has actually done this sort of thing before.
After all you wouldn?t want your house being built by someone who has worked as a labourer and seen how bricklayers and carpenters do it but never done more than the basics themselves, would you?
It is a necessary device to stop scores of recent graduates and site assistants setting up their own companies and winning tenders that they do not have the competence to run (we do get them!!!!)(with appalling regularity).
I suggest that you contact the curator (always a very good idea if you haven?t worked in the area before anyway, even if you are a MIFA and run a RAO).
its normally just a formality if you have actually carried out work as yourself before. They might ask for a reference but wouldnt you?
ten years on and still no bottom
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
17th April 2009, 02:57 PM
Um....maybe I am mentally switched onto something else, but I do think that European law and whether councils can include or exclude tenderers is very pertinent to this discussion.
I would still ask the same question Peter, why do you maintain that qualified exclusion from the tender process is anti-competitive in the UK whilst it is common, accepted and [u]apparently</u> legal elsewhere in the EU and EEA?
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
17th April 2009, 05:06 PM
I am even using bribery... metting with my old council, and taking cake }
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
17th April 2009, 05:42 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge
Um....maybe I am mentally switched onto something else, but I do think that European law and whether councils can include or exclude tenderers is very pertinent to this discussion.
I would still ask the same question Peter, why do you maintain that qualified exclusion from the tender process is anti-competitive in the UK whilst it is common, accepted and [u]apparently</u> legal elsewhere in the EU and EEA?
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Hi chaps
Hopefully I can irritate this situation a bit more by saying that if the elected members of a council formulate and agree a policy stating that archaeiology in the planning process can only be carried out by members of the IFA then that has a legal basis and the council can enforce it. I'm not saying it would stand up to judicial review but... it can be legal for a council to require.
I believe that an east midlands council did once have membership of the IFA as a policy but they were not rigid in their enforcement of it.
Steven
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
17th April 2009, 05:45 PM
what a murky area... is there no hard and fast rule??
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
17th April 2009, 06:01 PM
[quote]Originally posted by BAJR Host
what a murky area...
Er...the East Midlands? Yes. I agree.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
17th April 2009, 06:37 PM
Steven said,
"elected members of a council formulate and agree a policy stating that archaeiology in the planning process can only be carried out by members of the IFA then that has a legal basis and the council can enforce it."
This isnt quite correct. The elected members of an LPA can formulate a policy requiring membership of the IFA but they cant enforce it straight away. Such policy would have to be a formal planning policy which was part of a Local Plan. The proposed plans is scrutinised in public and a planning inspector makes the final decision. The policy also has to be in accordance with national guidelines.
In the absence of a licensing system clarification of who is qualified to undertake archaeological fieldwork and/or building recording could be useful in such documents.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
17th April 2009, 08:24 PM
Just a point on Wednesbury it has to fall into one of the following.
?
? the corporation, in making that decision, took into account factors that ought not to have been taken into account, or
? the corporation failed to take account factors that ought to have been taken into account, or
? the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it.
I would suggest that a council stipulating membership of a Body that was not recognised in law as the controlling body of that profession such as that controlling medical practice or law would be acting unreasonably as in the first point above. Secondly PPGs are advisory and therefore cannot be relied on in law other than by reference to the legislation from which they derive their power.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
17th April 2009, 09:13 PM
PetreAF Thanks for that for the defination view - I didnt have to look up Wednesday Unreasonable to check the exact meaning.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
17th April 2009, 09:47 PM
Peter you really should Its always worth reading what Greene MR has to say As for "exact" Well its always up for reinterpretation as Atkinson LJ almost said. As for
"The elected members of an LPA can formulate a policy requiring membership of the IFA but they cant enforce it straight away." It cant be enforced at all. I will put that another way They could put it up as policy but it would fall because it is not lawful
