Gloucester Council next....

[vulpes]

Kevin, unfortunately PPS5 isn't statute, it's policy (plus you can drive a cart horse through those statements), and anyway it's days may well be numbered. xx(

However, unlike Unit, I do not feel that this would be a good thing. I also do not feel that it would result in more work for him, or anyone else out there. Rather it would be something like a return to the 80's, but without the curators and county units, MSC or owt much going on.

[BAJR]

I fear that Vulpes is right on this. PPS5 is like going to sea in a sieve. and the alternative is not going to bode well for commercial groups. This place could get mighty lonely in teh years to come - unless we think to the future. And we do seem to be doing that. Though the term herding cats may spring to mind.

I have written to the Gloucester Councillor for Heritage and Leisure. so waiting for a reply. :face-confused:

[Navajo]

I cannot confirm this, and I do hate rumours but I heard Cumbria HER is cutting jobs..

[Marcus Brody]

I agree with Vulpes on this. If a Council no longer has access to curatorial advice, it's unlikely that much archaeological work will get done in that area. I don't see Councils imposing a blanket requirement for every application to be accompanied by a desk-based assessment or a report outlining the results of an evaluation, and even if they did, there'd be nobody available to tell the planner whether these reports were adequate, or whether further work was required. I know that Unit of 1 would probably consider that the planner should accept his / her recommendation, a sort of 'Trust Me, I'm An Archaeologist' approach, but in practise this isn't realistic. In addition to attaching the conditions that are the prompt for most commercial fieldwork, under the current system curators also act to provide an independent assessment to the planner to ensure that fieldwork has been undertaken to an appropriate standard and level, while also providing a degree of insurance to developers that contractors aren't trying to over-charge them by undertaking work that's not necessary to address the archaeological issues raised by the development proposal.

While philosophically I think that regulatory functions such as this should be provided by not-for-profit public bodies rather than commercial concerns, I think it would always be preferable for a Council to have some form of curatorial advice, even if this has to be bought in, than to have no access to such a service, as this would at least ensure that some archaeological work would take place. I do think, however, that bodies providing curatorial advice should not also undertake commercial fieldwork or consultancy. This applies equally to Council units, Trusts and commercial firms. I've never understood how it's possible to avoid a clear conflict of interest where one body undertakes both roles. Similarly, if a commercial consultancy is appointed to provide curatorial advice to a Council, surely this will give them a clear commercial advantage over their competitors, in that they'll be in a position to see all their documentation, working practises and costs, and will be in prime position to undercut them when tendering for work.

[Sparky]

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE

Article 5
Each Party undertakes:


i) to seek to reconcile and combine the respective requirements of archaeology and development plans by ensuring that archaeologists participate:

a. in planning policies designed to ensure well-balanced strategies for the protection, conservation and enhancement of sites of archaeological interest;

b. in the various stages of development schemes;

ii) to ensure that archaeologists, town and regional planners systematically consult one another in order to permit:

a. the modification of development plans likely to have adverse effects on the archaeological heritage;

b. the allocation of sufficient time and resources for an appropriate scientific study to be made of the site and for its findings to be published;

iii) to ensure that environmental impact assessments and the resulting decisions involve full consideration of archaeological sites and their settings;

iv) to make provision, when elements of the archaeological heritage have been found during development work, for their conservation in situ when feasible;

v) to ensure that the opening of archaeological sites to the public, especially any structural arrangements necessary for the reception of large numbers of visitors, does not adversely affect the archaeological and scientific character of such sites and their surroundings.

The financing of archaeological research and conservation


If this is worth the pixels its written on, then can one assume that archaeological advice to planners is a legal requirement? And would Big Society do-gooders, if not appropriately qualified or experienced, be suitable advisers?

[kevin wooldridge]

I do think, however, that bodies providing curatorial advice should not also undertake commercial fieldwork or consultancy. This applies equally to Council units, Trusts and commercial firms. I've never understood how it's possible to avoid a clear conflict of interest where one body undertakes both roles.

Conflict of interest? This was some gobbledygook invented during the 80s. There were plenty of local authority units around in the 70s and 80s, prior to the 'liberalisation' of archaeology by the Thatcherites, who were able to provide a top quality service without the question of conflict of interest ever raising its ugly head. My argument at the time when we were told that we had been 'conflicting our interests' was that if you went to a doctor and he told you needed an operation, you wouldn't care too much if his surgeon colleague in the next room carried out the procedure......you certainly wouldn't insist that they created so called 'Chinese Walls' where one was discouraged from consulting with the other. You might actually think that lack of communication was dereliction of duty rather than conflict of interest.....

[Unitof1]

Vulpes I have enough work- I am not after more work. But I am after competing fairly for field work. I am best at digging holes in the ground. I call that field archaeology. Any thing else is watching briefs or talking about watching briefs.

Newbee said-

If a Council no longer has access to curatorial advice, it's unlikely that much archaeological work will get done in that area.

But the old friend sparky remembers that the Closest we have to law says-

i) to seek to reconcile and combine the respective requirements of archaeology and development plans by ensuring that archaeologists participate:

Just put archaeology as a required consideration for a planning application under town and country planning and let the applicant find a archaeologist--so what if maybe your not one??theres plenty of real archaeologists out there..this country produces 2000 ish degreed ones a year?..and let the real archaeologists decide if

'Trust Me, I'm An Archaeologist' approach, but in practise this isn't realistic

is true

[differentcolourmud]

How are we going to do any archaeology if we don?t have a HER.

I hear that in Suffolk that they are now doing mostly evaluations post determination and have stopped doing watching briefs.
.

Where did you hear that then? Theres plenty of evals being put on both pre and post determination applications in Suffolk, down to the smallest jobs such as single garages or houses. Actually whats happening is that evals are being required instead of watching briefs as a first stage of work. And if anything at all turns up theres invariably a watching brief, or as they call it, continuous archaeological recording, being put on.

[Marcus Brody]

Conflict of interest? This was some gobbledygook invented during the 80s. There were plenty of local authority units around in the 70s and 80s, prior to the 'liberalisation' of archaeology by the Thatcherites, who were able to provide a top quality service without the question of conflict of interest ever raising its ugly head.

Yes, but they were operating in an entirely different environment, one in which the field arm was not in a position to undercut its competitors through its close relationship with the regulatory body because there were no commercial companies bidding for the same work. You could argue that the system of area-based Council-run units is preferable to today's commercial free-for-all (and if you were to argue that, I'd definitely agree with you!), but that's not the position we're in at the moment. In the current set-up, whether you agree with it or not, I don't see how it's possible to have the same body curating an area while also competing for work against other companies. It surely must give the fieldwork arm an advantage over its competitors. I'd be interested to hear how those members working for commercial contractors would feel if one of their competitors won the contract to provide curatorial advice to a Council - would you be happy for that company to continue to compete against you for fieldwork, to see all your tenders and to pass judgement on the competency or otherwise of your fieldwork?

[ShadowJack]

As someone who has, over the years, worked for a number of commercial and local authority units - all I can say is that in my experience, it was whilst working for the local authority units that I tended to experience more requests for additional work/sampling/trenching or reports rejected for not meeting requirements than when with commercial units. Despite being employed by the same authority, the council units were a separate team from the DC/HER teams usually housed in separate buildings with a distinct and again separate management structure. It was a common complaint amongst staff in the local council units I've worked for that our collegues in DC/HER made 'requests' for us to carryout addition work either in the field or during P/X that weren't asked of our competing private contractors - simply because we did work for the same authority and they perhaps felt they could get away with making such requests.

Sometimes we'd feel we were being used as guinea-pigs to test the waters for new requirements and that they came down hard on us - simply because we were the local authority unit.

As for tendering and undercutting competitors because we happened to work for the same authority - sorry, didn't/doesn't happen. We'd lose jobs just like other units on price - even if we carried out the initial evaluation stage. If local authority units did have an unfair advantage and were able to routinely undercut competitors - and presumably make some dosh in the process - would we be discusing the demise of local authority units?

Or would we have a thread moaning about the cartel of council units forcing the commercial sector to its knees?