Consultants sought for Curatorial Standards and guidance project

[Unitof1]

establishing the concept of HER advice as enshrined in PPS5

if its enshrined why does it need establishing? or is eh saying that pps5 has not been understode by all the curators? hence we have sulfolk with evaluations as the start of any intervention and this backwater can turn an archaeological condition into a 3 part saga http://www.eldc.gov.uk/planning/AcolNetC...key=107226?

[Marcus Brody]

I don't know what Unitof1's concerns are with this post as I added him to my ignore list some time ago (a decision that I've had absolutely no cause to regret, and indeed one that I would wholeheartedly recommend to anyone!). However, from some of the replies to his posts and my previous exposure to his emails, I'd imagine that he probably views it as a conspiracy of pension-grabbers to make work for other pension-grabbers by creating a cushy publicly-funded non-job, all designed to make life even more difficult for the Only Real Archaeologist In The World (him) by wrapping him in a burdensome cocoon of red tape and attempting to seize control of his valuable copyright by ever more onerous requirements to work to professional standards or share the results of his fieldwork with the wider community. My reading of it is more benign - I think all the IFA want the consultant to do is write something that sets out what an HER should and shouldn't do. I'd have thought that this is something that contractors would support - they're expected to work to IFA standards, why should the HER that monitors their work on behalf of the planning authority be any different?

[Dinosaur]

Aren't archaeological contractors expected to work to IFA standards purely because curators expect them to say that they're going to in WSIs? :face-stir:

[Marcus Brody]

Aren't archaeological contractors expected to work to IFA standards purely because curators expect them to say that they're going to in WSIs? :face-stir:

Yes, but the point is that the availability of the IFA standard acts as a shorthand means for the curator to ensure that the contractor will carry out the work to certain minima - many contractors will of course undertake work that exceeds these levels, but by asking that work is undertaken in accordance with IFA standards, curators should be able to ensure that any work is at least competent. It also allows organisations that are not part of the RAO scheme to compete for and win work, by agreeing to work to IFA guidelines. I know it's been discussed on here before, but an alternative would possibly be for Councils to require that work only be carried out by RAOs, which I don't think would be a popular move. I'm not sure whether this would be legal, but, as I said before, I don't think it would be a bad thing if there were also IFA guidelines for curators, as a means of measuring whether they meet certain basic standards in terms of things like access to information. It would also be a way to standardise curatorial advice, hopefully to reduce the situation of developers or contractors saying 'well, that's not the way they do things in Nextdoorshire, they just asked us to let them know if we spotted anything as the bulldozers moved in' - when tendering for work, you'd know that each HER would be following the same proceedure, which would be codified in the guidance document, and so would be transparent to the outside user.

[Unitof1]

hosty Marcus’s is hercule poirot. It appears that he can work out from the reply to my posts-

[SIZE=3]from some of the replies to his posts and my previous exposure to his emails, I'd imagine that he probably views it as a conspiracy of pension-grabbers to make work for other pension-grabbers by creating a cushy publicly-funded non-job, all designed to make life even more difficult for the Only Real Archaeologist In The World (him)
[/SIZE]

when the replies to my posts were

[SIZE=3]Agnes Baden-Powell.
[/SIZE]

and

[SIZE=3]Jokes about Girl Guides are puerile at the best of times. I hope that no-one will be distracted from the importance of this proposition and the significance of the proposed guidelines.
[/SIZE]

Is it a conspiracy -maybe. The need to get a consultancy to establish what has been enshrined has not only come from ify but also algao, eh and hs-but not cadw, manx nh niea. Lets not call it a conspiracy but a meeting or possibly a series of meetings, tea and biscuits. Lets imagine how the meeting or meetings of the gang of four came about, lets imagine the agenda, the corium, those that sat under two hats, the time table, train tickets? Lets understand where the funding came from -13500 /X x pifa fees. Is there for instance a mutuality between hsh and eh, two different trove laws united as one. Why do they need a consultancy, cant algao do it. Who objected to an in house approach. Do they want an appearance of independence. Has the candidate already been selected. How does ify select. More committees with two hats.

[SIZE=3]when tendering for work, you'd know that each HER would be following the same proceedure, which would be codified in the guidance document, and so would be transparent to the outside user.

[/SIZE]

transparent to the outside user. not like pss5 which is only just a year old and ppg16 is not yet dead (which is what the consultants will say causes the discrepancies) its about that time when the pension-grabbers to make work for other pension-grabbers by creating a cushy publicly-funded non-job, all designed to make life even more difficult for the Only Real Archaeologist In The World (him)

http://www.eldc.gov.uk/planning/AcolNetC...key=107226
yes thats potentialy three different discharge charges pension grabbers

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]when tendering for work

this does not happen in archaeology[/SIZE]

[Marcus Brody]

this does not happen in archaeology

As you know, I usually try to ignore Unit's posts, but this is such a ridiculous statement that it has to be highlighted. Only yesterday I was involved in a tendering situation where the developer sent a specification for an archaeological evaluation to five companies and asked each to submit their quote for the work. If this is not tendering in archaeology, I don't know what is - and it's by no means unusual. (Didn't win the tender, by the way).

I only saw this post because I was viewing the thread as a guest rather than being logged under my profile - I'm not going to trawl back through the thread to read all his other posts, as I suspect the unhinged lunacy would only put me in a bad mood for the rest of the day!
}

[Unitof1]

Dear unhinged lunatic guest, poor you, you have been subject to a depraved and loathsome tendering process and in the name of archaeology. I cant imagine the corner of hell that you inhabit right now. Mortal combat with five others, bish bash and its all over in a day. You are probably flagellating yourself over yours and the others standards. How much did it cost you (and the others)? Is this something that the gang of fours consultants have to consider.

But wait how can this be in this day and age when the number of the beast is pps5. I cant find any mention of the word tender or brief in it. All it does is go on about

[SIZE=3]Policy HE6: Information requirements for applications for consent affecting ..
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Local planning authorities should not validate applications where the extent of the impact of the proposal on the significance of any heritage assets affected cannot adequately be understood from the application and supporting documents.
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Policy HE7: Policy principles guiding (woggle) the determination of applications for consent relating to all heritage assets
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]In decision-making local planning authorities should seek to identify and assess
the particular significance of any element of the historic environment that may be
affected by the relevant proposal (including by development affecting the setting of
a heritage asset) taking account of:

(i) evidence provided with the application
[/SIZE]

From this my dear Watson I surmise that the Dear unhinged lunatic guest was involved in a tender to provide evidence with the application.

Is that right Dear unhinged lunatic guest or were you and your curators stuck in some bygone paradigm which possibly is what this odd consultation whitewash is about. Thing is- is it to change the paradigm or bring the new one on.

[Oxbeast]

It is a bit trying that every single thread now descends into this kind of bollocks. I reckon it's the 'care in the community' atmosphere that puts lots of people off posting.

[P Prentice]

Is it a conspiracy -maybe. The need to get a consultancy to establish what has been enshrined has not only come from ify but also algao, eh and hs-but not cadw, manx nh niea. Lets not call it a conspiracy but a meeting or possibly a series of meetings, tea and biscuits. Lets imagine how the meeting or meetings of the gang of four came about, lets imagine the agenda, the corium, those that sat under two hats, the time table, train tickets? Lets understand where the funding came from -13500 /X x pifa fees. Is there for instance a mutuality between hsh and eh, two different trove laws united as one. Why do they need a consultancy, cant algao do it. Who objected to an in house approach. Do they want an appearance of independence. Has the candidate already been selected. How does ify select. More committees with two hats.

transparent to the outside user. not like pss5 which is only just a year old and ppg16 is not yet dead (which is what the consultants will say causes the discrepancies) its about that time when the pension-grabbers to make work for other pension-grabbers by creating a cushy publicly-funded non-job, all designed to make life even more difficult for the Only Real Archaeologist In The World (him)

http://www.eldc.gov.uk/planning/AcolNetC...key=107226
yes thats potentialy three different discharge charges pension grabbers

ah tis the illuminati and the phoebus cartel all over again - so you wont be applying then my little Slothrop?