22nd June 2005, 12:59 PM
Using the same argument that consultants should have a certain amount of field experience, I would suggest that all archaeologists, or at least those in the "commercial sector", should have some knowledge and appreciation of the planning and development framework in which they work.
There are no doubt some evil developers who see archaeology/PPG16 as a nuisance and who would actively seek to destroy it by any means to save a few bob. There are some excellent ones who genuinely enter into the spirit of the thing and are happy to play a full part. Nearly all however will be somewhere on a line between the two extremes. There are many other things beside archaeology that a developer may be required to do, and/or pay for, in order to obtain planning permission, like roundabouts and traffic lights, affordable/social housing elements, services infrastructure and maybe even schools. All of these require require a specialist consultant to advise and represent the client, among other things to see that he is not ripped off by the planning authority, put crudely, which is only fair. Sometimes the balance may not be, or seem, fair, but it is a complex business!
Doc Pete summarises things extremely well, thanks for that Doc. I'm not sure though why failure to follow a spec is down to the contractor who is failing to follow it i.e. failing to fulfil his contactual obligations. Sure it's him at fault, but someone has to monitor and flag it up, and require rectification and/or financial adjustment (e.g. architect/building contractor relationship). If a consultant has commissioned the work on behalf of his client, should it not be him? And should the work not be to the satisfaction of the curator (the planning authority) who required the work in the first place? (e.g. planners/building regs people - builder/architect relationships)
Re. minor variations - an hours extra work: verbal instructions are everyday in construction, on site or by phone, and get confirmed by AI (Architect's instruction) in due course. Usually the builder will have a pad of CVI's (confirmation of verbal instructions) for a handwritten summary of the instruction at the time. If archaeology units don't use them, the consutlant could use his own to give peace of mind to the contractor if desired. Of course any bit ofpaper would do but we like to look professional don't we?
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
There are no doubt some evil developers who see archaeology/PPG16 as a nuisance and who would actively seek to destroy it by any means to save a few bob. There are some excellent ones who genuinely enter into the spirit of the thing and are happy to play a full part. Nearly all however will be somewhere on a line between the two extremes. There are many other things beside archaeology that a developer may be required to do, and/or pay for, in order to obtain planning permission, like roundabouts and traffic lights, affordable/social housing elements, services infrastructure and maybe even schools. All of these require require a specialist consultant to advise and represent the client, among other things to see that he is not ripped off by the planning authority, put crudely, which is only fair. Sometimes the balance may not be, or seem, fair, but it is a complex business!
Doc Pete summarises things extremely well, thanks for that Doc. I'm not sure though why failure to follow a spec is down to the contractor who is failing to follow it i.e. failing to fulfil his contactual obligations. Sure it's him at fault, but someone has to monitor and flag it up, and require rectification and/or financial adjustment (e.g. architect/building contractor relationship). If a consultant has commissioned the work on behalf of his client, should it not be him? And should the work not be to the satisfaction of the curator (the planning authority) who required the work in the first place? (e.g. planners/building regs people - builder/architect relationships)
Re. minor variations - an hours extra work: verbal instructions are everyday in construction, on site or by phone, and get confirmed by AI (Architect's instruction) in due course. Usually the builder will have a pad of CVI's (confirmation of verbal instructions) for a handwritten summary of the instruction at the time. If archaeology units don't use them, the consutlant could use his own to give peace of mind to the contractor if desired. Of course any bit ofpaper would do but we like to look professional don't we?
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.