IFA RO only as approved contractors

[Marcus Brody]

For the past ten years the Institute has been working with curators and colleagues in ALGAO to encourage them to move away from recommending local lists, and instead to recommend that work arising from the planning process is undertaken by Registered Organisations.

Given that BAJR doesn't seem to have had much luck finding a local authority that's willing to publicly admit that it has a policy of recommending that work arising from the planning process should only be undertaken by ROs, could the IfA perhaps provide details? I don't mean ones who just refer developers to the IfA list, I mean those who would refuse to allow a developer to use a non RO if the developer said that their contractor of choice was not in the club.

[Dinosaur]

It's not a particularly good comparison though. At present the situation is more like looking for a cab to get you to, say round Perth, and calling a cab company in Cardiff or London. You simply wouldn't do it because it would obviously not make financial sense in most cases, and you certainly wouldn't sift a great long list of 'registered' cab drivers till you found one that sounded like a good option. You'd go to a local directory. Why can't the IfA's site have an option to search for where ROs are based rather than where they are willing to work (or does it already have this?)

Hence my comment on here a while back about the recent (aand in some cases not so recent) outbreak of companies apparently having loads of 'regional offices' many of which, going by the addresses, look suspiciously like private domiciles - how many of these are merely 'addresses of convenience' so that the unit can look 'local', and how can even larger units cover the overheads of running a dozen 'regional offices'? There are several around here, but it's not been noticeable that the units in question actually get any significant workload through them, leastways they don't seem to have cut into our business noticeably :face-thinks:

[bunnyhugger]

Kevin,

I understood your point, I could just look at the RO list to see if a unit was still an RO or not.
I do not think their RO list is updated as often as you think. I certainly do not think that it is updated so regularly as to make it fit for the purpose of legally defining who can and cannot undertake archaeological work in an area.

Where would local authorities stand legally if they received a WSI and refused it on the basis that the unit in question was not on the RO list only to find out later that they were added to it shortly after they checked it? Especially if the unit in question was actually voted in a few days before so were technically an RO at the time of refusal.
Like them or hate them both the current and the new proposed planning system have little room for such grey areas.

As I stated even if it were desirable to restrict working in a County to ROs only we would not be in a position to even consider it until such time as the IFA develop a system to ensure that the relevant local authorities were promptly updated on any changes.




In terms of finding a local unit their website it is next to useless. We are located on the edge of a region and as such you have to search the adjacent regions to find your local units and then wade through endless reams of units located hundreds of miles away.


Maybe they should take a leaf out of BAJRs books and set it so that you can select your town and specify what radius you wish to search for.

[BAJR]

Just in from the IfA.. of course I can't quote the whole newsletter, but am citing fair usage...

and feel this does not constitute an out of context quote as well as being information that is also currently in the public domain.

anyway..

For the past ten years the Institute has been working with curators and colleagues in ALGAO to encourage them to move away from recommending local lists, and instead to recommend that work arising from the planning process is undertaken by Registered Organisations. Last year we published a legal opinion on the requirement to use Registered Organisations by LPA curators which we hope allays some fears about legal challenge. There is obviously more work to be done, but we are hopeful that an increasing amount of work undertaken in the historic environment sector will be done so by organisations working within the Registered Organisation Scheme for the benefit of the profession, and, more importantly, the archaeology and the public who ultimately benefit from its understanding.

[RedEarth]

Hence my comment on here a while back about the recent (aand in some cases not so recent) outbreak of companies apparently having loads of 'regional offices' many of which, going by the addresses, look suspiciously like private domiciles - how many of these are merely 'addresses of convenience' so that the unit can look 'local', and how can even larger units cover the overheads of running a dozen 'regional offices'? There are several around here, but it's not been noticeable that the units in question actually get any significant workload through them, leastways they don't seem to have cut into our business noticeably :face-thinks:

I must have missed that but it is a good point. Always seemed pretty underhand using private addresses and PO boxes to appear local but it does seem pretty widespread. Wonder how many ROs indulge in such behaviour?

[Martin Locock]

If being local was such a commercial advantage, we wouldn't have super units surely?

[kevin wooldridge]

I must have missed that but it is a good point. Always seemed pretty underhand using private addresses and PO boxes to appear local but it does seem pretty widespread. Wonder how many ROs indulge in such behaviour?

I think this is surely making a mountain out of a molehill....the use of the term 'underhand' suggests that such practice is illegal (it isn't) or makes bad business sense (it doesn't). I am totally in favour of locally based archaeological services, but all of us who have been around for 20 years or more have been through that struggle. We lost decisively to the combination of market forces and a lack of support from national bodies and local curators. We have to accept I think that archeeology in the UK is pretty much a nationally based business. Good luck to those organisations that maintain a local or regional identity, but for lots of archaeologists who can't find work locally the nationally based organisations are a godsend.

[BAJR]

Just to help people compare what is being discussed about contractor searches.

I actually changed to this system 3 years back as it was clear that developers were wanting to find people with more subtle search... ( which is why you look for small medium or large companies - and types of work offered and a town/poscode distance search) I ditched the regional search, as it was abused by people saying... oh, I will work anywhere... which was fine, but then if I was in Llangolan in south wales, I would not want to find an Aberdeenshire contractor in the list.

Am happy to share with the IfA the system if they want.

So IfA RO Search
http://www.archaeologists.net/ROsearch

BAJR Contractor Search over 270 contractors available ( Expand into Europe as well! with over 630 contractors listed)

http://www.bajr.org/RACSmap/

If being local was such a commercial advantage, we wouldn't have super units surely?

And how are the super units doing? The local small archaeologists are doing well as they can react quickly, have local knowledge, relationships with the local history centre, curators, planners - know the wider archaeology in the area and are cheaper. Get rid of them, and the developer will have to use the super unit...

I would prefer to be wooed not forced

I have talked to a few curators that say - no - we are the ones that actually police the standards. and people have to agree to IfA Standards.

Here is an interesting take.

Local ficticious Archaeologist ACE ARCHAEOLOGY UNIT (please tell me there is not one called that!) has never worked in the county before and is not an RO. but is super cheap and the developer has chosen them - as is their right. The DC Arch sees the Project Design and says.. thats good, fine and well prepared. (if it was not... alarm bells may ring)

Now job is done and it is a bloody disaster, as the archaeologist turns out to be a have a go hero who gained all his knowledge from Time Team who was reading the paper when the cists were machined out ... oooops!

He won't work in that county again.. surely... as they have not carried out a project successfully in the county, indeed have caused a mess. Developer is out of pocket and takes ACE AU to court


If they had been ROs... how would the situation change? Would the archaeology be undamaged? would the developer not still have to take the ACE AU to court? Would the curator be in any stronger a position? etc etc...

Now... tell me that RO is an additional kitemark (bear with me) and I would partially agree. Tell me it is the only kitemark and I would refer the honourable gentlemen to the established fact that Curators are already setting the benchmark - based on IfA Standards.

Once again... the advice on legality is an opinion... not a fact established by law. And nobody seems to be keen to be seen to be saying ROs only. Indeed... if you are a curatorial group that follows this path, do please tell me.

I cannot imagine the council restricting planning to RIBA architects or RICS surveyors - though again you (as the individual) have the right to choose...

Should their be an RO system? well of course - though that is the business of the IfA
Should their be standards? well of course - and the IfA have created these standards.
Should membership be compulsory or you will be put out of work? - Now that's the question.

Answers on a small postcard.

[Marcus Brody]

Should membership be compulsory or you will be put out of work? - Now that's the question

No - that's my answer (I would have just said 'no', but the system requires at least 10 characters!)

[RedEarth]

I think this is surely making a mountain out of a molehill....the use of the term 'underhand' suggests that such practice is illegal (it isn't) or makes bad business sense (it doesn't). I am totally in favour of locally based archaeological services, but all of us who have been around for 20 years or more have been through that struggle. We lost decisively to the combination of market forces and a lack of support from national bodies and local curators. We have to accept I think that archeeology in the UK is pretty much a nationally based business. Good luck to those organisations that maintain a local or regional identity, but for lots of archaeologists who can't find work locally the nationally based organisations are a godsend.

Underhand doesn't mean illegal, obviously it's not illegal. Misleading? Yes. A bit of a slap in the face for an organisation that does actually invest genuine time and money into an area in order to really build up local knowledge etc. Of course. The nationally based organisations are also surely relying on getting the projects of such massive size that only so many companies in the country can feasibly deal with them, so good luck to them, they can have that cake and eat it. But to set up pretend regional offices just to snaffle up more work is basically greedy.

How does your last comment even make sense? All companies are local to somewhere, and all people are local to where they happen to live, until they move somewhere else, so it makes little difference.