9th January 2006, 02:31 PM
Hi all
I've only skimmed this, but will add a few thoughts.
1 man - your list of curatorial 'interests' only cover the narrow band of PPG16 work. Our remit extends much beyond that - my own job description runs to several pages, with advising on development control work being mentioned only once or twice. I would personally add the following to your list. 1. the setting and revisiting of research agendas; 2. the management and structure of the SMR/HER; 3. the involvment and inclusion of the general public in heritage management; and 4. the setting and revisiting of local, regional and national heritage policies. I don't, and the other curators I know well, consider these to be subservient - we have to do them all.
My area has its own Guidance Papers that detail the standards we expect here, which we are in the process of revisiting to make even more watertight and current. However, we also refer to the IFA guidlines in briefs and letters, so that all bases are covered - may be the easy way out, but it works for us. In my experience the IFA guidelines can be a little vague, so ours are more specific to complement them. We expect all persons working here to uphold these standards, ptherwise don't approve specs and toss reports back. But to be honest, upholding the standards isn't really very hard, is it? The IFA ones are pretty basic, really.
And finally, I wish I held all the cards! It's the planners who do, and behind them sits the elected representatives. Don't cross the Councillors! I recently tried to take enforcement action against a new school, and as you can imagine that went down like a lead balloon in the Council offices!
Sorry have been wordy - may have a further think and write again
Happy new year
ML (MIFA)
I've only skimmed this, but will add a few thoughts.
1 man - your list of curatorial 'interests' only cover the narrow band of PPG16 work. Our remit extends much beyond that - my own job description runs to several pages, with advising on development control work being mentioned only once or twice. I would personally add the following to your list. 1. the setting and revisiting of research agendas; 2. the management and structure of the SMR/HER; 3. the involvment and inclusion of the general public in heritage management; and 4. the setting and revisiting of local, regional and national heritage policies. I don't, and the other curators I know well, consider these to be subservient - we have to do them all.
My area has its own Guidance Papers that detail the standards we expect here, which we are in the process of revisiting to make even more watertight and current. However, we also refer to the IFA guidlines in briefs and letters, so that all bases are covered - may be the easy way out, but it works for us. In my experience the IFA guidelines can be a little vague, so ours are more specific to complement them. We expect all persons working here to uphold these standards, ptherwise don't approve specs and toss reports back. But to be honest, upholding the standards isn't really very hard, is it? The IFA ones are pretty basic, really.
And finally, I wish I held all the cards! It's the planners who do, and behind them sits the elected representatives. Don't cross the Councillors! I recently tried to take enforcement action against a new school, and as you can imagine that went down like a lead balloon in the Council offices!
Sorry have been wordy - may have a further think and write again
Happy new year
ML (MIFA)