Evaluating urban sites

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]“officers employed directly by democratically elected members who have no direct financial involvement in outcomes, have some consistency across different cases and who are subject to a regulated complaint structure?”

[/SIZE]

bit like those hospital managers that they are getting rid of.

[SIZE=3]One reason I do it is in some cases so that everybody is quoting on exactly the same basis, sometimes because I have a specific question concerning the archaeological potential and sometimes its based on a specific impact lead threat. Sometimes (gasp, horror) it's because I don't trust the commercial unit based on experiences on similar projects.

[/SIZE]

I don’t see why everybody should quote on the same basis
The excavators should have the specific questions
The developer should understand the threat
Who asked you to trust them-are there some units you trust- what does that mean

I know that you know what I am talking about because you have read PPS. It seems to say that the developer should come to that table with an archaeological statement.

barefoot digging, its the best

[Steven]

bit like those hospital managers that they are getting rid of.



I don’t see why everybody should quote on the same basis
The excavators should have the specific questions
The developer should understand the threat
Who asked you to trust them-are there some units you trust- what does that mean

I know that you know what I am talking about because you have read PPS. It seems to say that the developer should come to that table with an archaeological statement.

barefoot digging, its the best

Hi

Umm...No hospital managers are employed by PCT's not ELECTED members who represent a community. Trying to equate curators with people demonised by tabloids is not debate.

No, you wouldn't but that's because you don't have a public duty of care like officers employed by elected members do. When I advice developers on the requirements of the LPA I also want to ensure proper quality and standards are implemented and not see the developer ripped off as that could bring archaeology in my county into disrepute.
Yes they should, but as shown by Dino's last post commercial interests can be paramount rather than the actual real reason for an evaluation which is to provide sufficient information to determine a planning application.
Yes they should, but that is entirely down to the advice they get so the same question occurs, are they more likely to un-biased advice from a commercially focused unit or an officer with no interest in the financial outcome?
There are some units with records of struggling with certain projects so sometimes more guidance is required.


Actually PPS says that Local Authorities should help applicants identify heritage assets, it is non-prescriptive in whether council or consultants should offer advice.

[Unitof1]

But steve who in this public care are you protecting.

Developer sends planning application in and it has an accompanying desk based explaining that there is reason to believe that nothing significant is there, or an evaluation report with further proposed mitigation. You can say it was not necessary or its not good enough. Whats all this public duty bringing archaeology into disrepute justify my existence. You would still be there in the process and probably in a much more un-biased way. Currently as soon as you accept a scheme of works you have in effect approved the cowboy to do the job what ever happens next. Where as if a report turned up you can turn round without having had any prior involvement and say its crap in the full knowledge that its not your fault this time.

[Dinosaur]

This is probably the most useful thread on here on ages and just for once I can actually get online of an evening - street full of b***dy students hogging the broadband normally :face-approve:...worth delaying my tea for a quick post and a small flagon of wine....

Steven, how do you react to developers who've got ahead of the game and already commisioned a DBA and include full mitigation proposals with their initial planning approach? - that's what we try and steer our regular clients towards and very often it's waived through with barely any comment from the curator as long as its thorough and straight-up and well thought through

(ignore the following couple of words, my 'delete' button seems to have packed in, maybe the evening's not going so well after all!
;even have)

[BAJR]

Thats a very very interesting post..... and I have to say....why not... it should work for everyone. If I saw a well thought out pre application scheme then (once checking myself) I would be happy... with perhaps a few comments. Without saying anything about anyone, I did sometimes get them... and 80% of the time they were fine...

[BAJR]

good luck with the rest of the evening

[GnomeKing]

complaining loudly about the lack of professional standards whilst telling the developer that they can "do the job cheaper than anybody else".

. A site visit involves trying to elicit responses from barley coherent mumbling dirty people who will not look you in the eye and point at invisible features they have yet to excavate and tell you "there's loads of re-cuts man" while any sane person sees a ditch with more than one fill.


good one


i expect my co-workers and assistants to conform to high standards of observation, technical excellence and percetive inquiry - not all fail...

i expect my excavtion crew not only to work hard, but to think hard...and i will 'prod' them if not.......i expect similar standards from curators

i am fine for a curator, or even a site manager to have limits in thier technical knowledge of excavation and 'coal-face' archaeological interpretation - so long as they know enough to ask the right questions and probe the data they are presented with....in short to make critical use of the technical expertise of others...

i feel the best curators are under resourced and unable to probe as much as they would/should...the futue does not look too good either

commercial archaeologists might think they can do without strong publicly funded curators (though Units' idea is interesting)...however as Members of the Public with an Interest in Archaeology it could not be more obvious that strong non-commercial regulation is vital for the long term protection of the national heritage

[Unitof1]

it could not be more obvious that strong non-commercial regulation is vital for the long term protection of the national heritage

how so obvious, its starting to look like there is less than 3404 who have bothered to get up in the morning and go and stare at miles of meaningless mud (although mostly dust at the mo) We dont actualy protect that much arch compared to whats being destroyed everyday in agriculture, costal erosion, climate change, drainage.....but it seems that we are all to be accused of being evil cowboys, hoodwinkers, as far as I am concerned get up in the morning, stare at hole, sod the report/archive unless you see something interesting and have something to say thats worth preserving by record

[Unitof1]

Sorry steve did not pick up on this

[SIZE=4]The same question can be fired streight back:

Why does a local planning authority need a contractor to tell them where trenches should go?

[/SIZE]

Because the contractor would also have to justify the evaluation (and location, sample size, methods) both to the curator and to the developer. That justification would go in the report and become a public precedent for the next evaluation. I also think that it would illicit better interpretations from the evaluation. At the moment we can pull this is a stupid place to put a trench defence, the curators put it here, therefore you have to accept the negative results. If the archaeologist had designed the sample and found nothing the curator could argue against the sampling method…at the moment if you make a mistake in positioning the trenches (no site visit, dba or basic instinct) its your regret.

As far as I see it the curators don’t justify the why where and the contractor can immediately do the lets console the developer with that curator is a .. routine but I will try and do the evaluation as cheaply as possible

[Steven]

This is probably the most useful thread on here on ages and just for once I can actually get online of an evening - street full of b***dy students hogging the broadband normally :face-approve:...worth delaying my tea for a quick post and a small flagon of wine....

Steven, how do you react to developers who've got ahead of the game and already commisioned a DBA and include full mitigation proposals with their initial planning approach? - that's what we try and steer our regular clients towards and very often it's waived through with barely any comment from the curator as long as its thorough and straight-up and well thought through

(ignore the following couple of words, my 'delete' button seems to have packed in, maybe the evening's not going so well after all!
;even have)

Hi
Well, it does depend on the quality of the work but if it came from a RAO (or another unit who stated they followed IFA, or the archaeologists is a member of the IFA) I hadn't dealt with before, then of course I would question why they felt it was ok to carry out a piece of work without first contacting me to agree the PD to conform to IFA Standards and Guidance (S & G DBA 3.2.5) and if they were recommending further work I would want to know why they also by-passed the S & D requirements to discuss this with me (S & D DBA Annex 2 Conclusions). Of course many of the units who work regularly in my county already know the requirements and agree these with me before submitting.

I already receive many DBAs produced for developers sometimes with recommendations for further work, or saying no work required. I would say that 40% of the DBAs for larger sites just don't look at a wide enough landscape (often they restrict themselves to 500m around the site) and often say no further work is required so I simply do not accept them. I have even been to appeal on these issues (a few times now) and always had my decision upheld by the Inspector. If the developer or their archaeologist had come to me first I could have discussed the requirements for the scope of the work therefore negating the costs (to both the developer AND the public purse) of the appeals!

I'm not taking an ideological stance here, or an anti consultant advising developer’s pre-app, I welcome early involvement, what I'm concerned about is developers (and my council) wasting money and time which could all be sorted out simply by communication with the LPA archaeologists AND actually following IFA S & Ds!

If there were no impartial curatorial advice to LPAs and they accepted the developer’s submission then which archaeological company is going to get most business, the one that suggests further work or the one that consistently advises NO work is needed. Well at that point I can see the death of lots of archaeological units as work plummets! If we've learnt one thing from the introduction of competitive tendering into archaeology it's that it opens it up to unscrupulous practices like any other activity and it’s therefore important to ensure LPAs have proper advice.

After all light touch regulation works so well doesn't it?