Contractor's lists

[historic building]

quote:Originally posted by Noddy

http://www.york.gov.uk/leisure/Local_his...rch_sites/

quote:There are seven Areas of Archaeological Importance (AAI's) in York. These are listed in Appendix D of the City of York Local Plan.

If you want to carry out work in one of these areas that disturbs, tips material on or floods the ground, you must complete an operations notice and send it to us. You can download an operations notice on the right hand side of this page. We will validate the notice and send it to the York Archaeological Trust (YAT), who will respond to the notice in one of the following ways:

that it has no interest in the operation, or
that it wishes to observe and record the operations (an archaeological watching brief), or
that it wishes to excavate the site in advance of the operation taking place. In this case the YAT can claim a period of up to four months and two weeks to carry out an excavation. You will not be under any duty to pay for the costs of any esulting archaeological work.
It is an offence to start work within six weeks of submitting the operations notice or to start work within an area of archaeological importance without completing an operations notice. It is also an offence to use a metal detector within an AAI.

While this isn't directly related to contractor lists as such I've never understood how, in the era of PPG16, polluter pays and all that, York City Council can force developers to use one contractor in the centre of York. Does this happen in other areas of the country? Is it just that I'm misreading this? After the 4 months and 2 weeks can the developer choose their own contractor/consultant? And what happens with post-ex costs? Why does the council not act as curator in these areas, and instead pass it on to a contractor? Am I being overly cynical about the situation??!!

This is a hangover from the duty of the trust in relation to the statutory area of archaeological importance. The Area of Archaeological Importance dates from before the separation of curatorial functions and digging (1979).

sorry already been answered.

I have a list of organisations who regularly undertake fieldwork within my patch, all of whom are RaOs. If a developer wants another organisation then I direct them to the IfA RaO List. (I have no idea if I am punctuating the abbreviations correctly). There are a few 1 man bands that operate in my region who do a very good job on small-scale work, utilities watching briefs etc. I probably send out the list of contractors about 3 or 4 times per year. The developers who ask for the list tend to be at the random punter end of the spectrum.

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

I wonder if this is widespread in other aspects of planning, ie. lists of herpetology companies, asbestos removal, newt wranglers, etc, etc.

I recently needed to replace some windows at the front of my house and as I live in a conservation area, the work has restrictions as to design and material and requires planning permission. I sought the advice of the a 'conservation' officer at our local planning office who was happy to give me the 'list' of local craftsmen able to make the windows (list total: 1 person) and those able to fit them (list total: 1 firm). So I don't think the archaeology parallel is that unusual and definetly not unique....



With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...

If the 'list' only had 1 of each type on it presumably it was very local indeed and didn't include people 40-50 miles away, unless of course you live in the middle of no-where!

[historic building]

This is all getting a bit too Unit of One for me. To quote the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/A...#pt2-l1g38

34 Investigating authorities for areas of archaeological importance(1)The Secretary of State may at any time appoint any person whom he considers to be competent to undertake archaeological investigations to exercise in relation to any area of archaeological importance the functions conferred by the following provisions of this Part of this Act on the investigating authority for an area of archaeological importance, and any such appointment shall be on such terms and for such period as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
[F1The Secretary of State shall consult with the Commission before making an appointment under this subsection in relation to an area situated in England.]
(2)A person?s appointment as investigating authority may be cancelled at any time by the Secretary of State [F2; but, where the appointment was made in relation to an area situated in England, he shall consult with the Commission before cancelling the appointment.]
(3)On appointing or cancelling the appointment of any person as investigating authority for an area of archaeological importance, the Secretary of Sate shall notify each local authority in whose area the area of archaeological importance in question is wholly or partly situated [F3; and, if the area is wholly or partly situated in Greater London, he shall also notify the Commission.]
(4)Where there is for the time being no person holding appointment under this section as the investigating authority for an area of archaeological importance, the functions of the investigating authority for that area under this Part of this Act shall be exercisable by the [F4Commission (in the case of an area situated in England) or the Secretary of State (in any other case)].
(5)A person duly authorised in writing by any person by whom the functions of an investigating authority under this Part of this Act are for the time being exercisable may act on his behalf in the exercise of those functions.
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1Words inserted by National Heritage Act 1983 (c. 47, SIF 7:face-thinks:, s. 41, Sch. 4 para. 55(2)

F2Words inserted by National Heritage Act 1983 (c. 47, SIF 7:face-thinks:, s. 41, Sch. 4 para. 55(3)

F3Words inserted by Local Government Act 1985 (c. 51, SIF 81:1), s. 6, Sch. 2 para. 2(3)

F4Words substituted by National Heritage Act 1983 (c. 47, SIF 7:face-thinks:, s. 41, Sch. 4 para. 55(4)

YAT are the nominated body under the terms of the act. There is one for each of the AAIs. The AMAAA reduces permitted development rights within AAI. These works do not require consent but require notification by the relevant undertaker. The nominated body receives the notification. In some other AAI the nominated body no longer undertakes fieldwork and it is likely that this would be tendered.

[monitor lizard]

quote:Originally posted by YellowPete

On the other hand:

There does seem to be a bit of a foot dragging attitude, from the Dept. Culture Media and Sport.

They say they want to implement both the heritage bill and the the alternate PPG's at the same time but from the committee review it looks like they are burying one, through lack of finance and the the other through neglect.

A bit hesitant to carry on with this thread, but feel obliged to mention that work on the PPS is continuing - the public consultation is due to take place in April-ish http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/serve.../nav.20037

ML

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Blacktusk

So its typically small `one man bands` who usually produce pretty poor to sub-standard work? I have worked with a number of small, medium and large companies who also produce `pretty poor to sub-standard work` and they get away with it. I think it all depends on who the person managing the project is, and if they have the experience, dedication and professionalism to undertake the work, it does not matter if they work alone or part of a large organisation.

It also relies on the Curator exercising his right to tell them to go away and come back when they have done an adequate job.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

Your lack of archaeological imagination disappoints me Curator

[geodan]

This is a topic that has been of great concern for a long while.

I am aware of one southern county that includes a restrictive and anti competitive clause within its heritage planning conditions, specifically

" before any works commence"....[suitable work]...."shall be carried out by one of the attached list of contractors..........".

The list of contractors is limited in length, additions to it are frustratingly infrequent and contact details to other directories, such as the RO list, are not present.

Surely illegal?

Happiness depends on ourselves.

[historic building]

quote:Originally posted by geodan


I am aware of one southern county that includes a restrictive and anti competitive clause within its heritage planning conditions, specifically

" before any works commence"....[suitable work]...."shall be carried out by one of the attached list of contractors..........".

Conditions issued on planning consents must be "clearly seen to be fair, reasonable and practicable." Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission. This wording of an archaeological condition is not included on this document, but I would draw your attention to one of the recommended archaeological conditions, number 54: *** ********* ***** ****** ****** ** *** ********** ***** ** *** ************ ********* ** *** ***** ******** *********, *** ***** ***** him ** ******* *** ********** *** ****** ***** ** ******* *** ***** (paragraphs 80-81)(the standard PPG16 condition is also recommended in this document). We have previously argued over the use of the access condition on this board and it is clear that many people have widely differing views to its interpretation.

The planning inspectorate's recommended conditions also contain this wording: LISTED BUILDING - ACCESS FOR RECORDING:
The developer shall give the local planning authority X days advance notice of the start of any works and, for a period of [e.g. 14 days] before any work begins, reasonable access to the building shall be given to [name of person/body or] a person/body nominated by the local planning authority for the purpose of recording the building [or interior] by making measured drawings or taking photographs.

Model Conditions: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/...324923.pdf
Inspectorate's conditions: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/...tions.html

As you can see it is accepted by both the Department for Communities and Local Government and the planning inspectorate that it is reasonable to nominate an archaeologist.

I have to say I do entirely disagree with it and would not tie a list into any condition as I think it would place the planning authority in a very curious situation with regard to enforcement action.

Edited to preserve the modesty of certain lizards. I had not noticed the reference to archaeologists as 'him' whilst pasting the condition across.

[Anna Stocks]

I always thought that this condition was reasonable because the developer only had to allow access to the nominated archaeologist - not pay the nominated archaeologist.

Does the southern county referred to above's condition requires the developer to pay one of the archaeologists on the list? If so, I think that is a different scenario than the access condition reffered to in Circular 11/95.

[monitor lizard]

Nooo! No to access conditions! Nooooo......horible, horrible things!!!!!!! (That would be my opinion, at any rate. and possibly off topic).

ML

[chert]

quote:Originally posted by RedEarth

quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

I wonder if this is widespread in other aspects of planning, ie. lists of herpetology companies, asbestos removal, newt wranglers, etc, etc.

I recently needed to replace some windows at the front of my house and as I live in a conservation area, the work has restrictions as to design and material and requires planning permission. I sought the advice of the a 'conservation' officer at our local planning office who was happy to give me the 'list' of local craftsmen able to make the windows (list total: 1 person) and those able to fit them (list total: 1 firm). So I don't think the archaeology parallel is that unusual and definetly not unique....



With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...

If the 'list' only had 1 of each type on it presumably it was very local indeed and didn't include people 40-50 miles away, unless of course you live in the middle of no-where!

We require some building work on our house to make it safe and watertight. The area we live in now qualifies for certain grants and loans, part backed by the local authority. Because LA cash is going into the work they insist that we only choose a builder from their recommended lists. Our usual plumber has already been supplanted by a council recommended one, because we don't have to pay him, the council do.

At least with the builders we are allowed some choice, but it is clear this is a council recommended list, not simply an inexhaustive list of local contractors.

The unit I work for gets a reasonable amount of work through being on certain local authority lists, though I know of one local authority who declined to put us on their list because we are not based in their county or an adjacent county, even though our current premises are 200-300m from said adjacent county (where we do a lot of work), and we are well inside the pre 1974 county boundary!