Iman It is a mute point whether I work on construction sites or not. According to CIS I dont do any construction for tax proposes(see (or not) Starting out in Archaeology- CIS registered) . Does it follow that for purposes of health and safety I have to call them archaeological sites although by watching brief you might have the edge in implying that its a construction site. Currently we dont do watching briefs anymore in my area but programs of archaeological work which might suggest that we would like to hold onto the pretence that archaeology should be undertaken on archaeological sites.
1man are you now implying that the type of work that I do should come under the ice contract and that the Good Docs view that all fieldwork should come under an archaeological consultant is the correct implication of the ice contract.
For what I do, I fill out a risk assessment and give it to my client and anybody I deem responsible for assisting the archaeological ground works or who might be affected by my activity. I carry two paper copies in my file on site.
1man I was trying to work out the ambiguity between the term curator mentioned in the guide (and only used in the guide as a definition) and planning supervisor which is used in the ice guidance but not defined there. Also mentioned in the ice guide is the CDM term principle contractor which unfortunately is not related to any of the positions mentioned in the contract but asked for in the appendix to the ice contract. Is it not the Employer? Is this a pigs ear?
I have tried chasing the Planning Supervisor through the regs [1994 regs 2(1)] to see if I could recognise the possibility that an archaeological curator could be confused with the position of planning supervisor. I was hoping the Steve might have enlightened us. From what I can ascertain a planning supervisor is another consultant like
http://fenhydro.co.uk/leg_planningsup.htm
A consultants dream rather than an advisor to the local district planning directorate.
Where I lose the plot is in clause 13.2(a) where the Consultant is the planning Supervisor as well. I suspect that this combination is the position that you are employed in. It possibly suggests that the position is justified under HSE legislation. Where the plot thickens is whether a principle contractors archaeologist consultant can be the planning supervisor rather than what is allowed in the regulations that the principle contractor can be the planning supervisor if competent. It is also a total package. By this I mean that possibly the Good Doc cannot act as a planning supervisor as the position is presumably responsible for the whole construction activity.
In the ice guidance, clause 13, that I have, it states that there is ambiguity concerning the application of the CDM regulations to archaeological work. It does not say why there is an ambiguity. The guide goes on to say that intention of the conditions of contract is that the archaeological contractor
does not perform the role of either principle contractor or planning supervisor. Why this
do not clause it does not say.
What could be interesting about this
does not clause is how two way the
does not perform the role of is. In other words what should the archaeologists do rather than the consultant (archaeologist) particularly in the area of liasing with the curators.
Hosty, my point is that through the creation of two archaeological positions in the ice contract, can one employ the other without their positions being compromised for the purpose of the contract? If not, you dont need a consultant.
Roillg, rollig, gollri, rigoll, lolrig, girlol, liglor, logirl, lirgol, lglrio, I can see how its moreish and would make a little more sense with a few hays.
