21st May 2006, 01:16 AM
Apologies if I break the AUP with this message. I have been away from my desk for a few days and I am catching up. Imanandhisdesk said
"We can tell a developer what would represent good practice and what would be advisable to do. However, we would have to make clear any difference between that and what the have to do. If we tell a developer that they have to do something that is not required by law and has not been requested by any regulatory authority (=local authority)".
I think this is a very Colcuttian argument that a consultant is the representative at the enemy's court. The basic gist of the argument is that the consultant in his suit and nice car persuades the client that out of the goodness of their heart they persuade the client to spend there money (or their share holders') doing what is right. This was the case before Nov 1990 and the introduction of PPG 16 - that is this was the argument that consultants deployed twenty years ago. I would suggest that this idea is archaic.
If SAMs or AAI are not involved what is the statutory basis? I think it is inpudent to tell a client that they have do something which cannot be legally enforced. Ask them, yes - tell them, no. Telling them they must do something will normally just make them say no as a point of principle. Explain the important, yes - find out if they are closet time team watchers or amateur archaeologists, yes and appeal to their better nature, yes. But tell them?
Dr Peter Wardle
"We can tell a developer what would represent good practice and what would be advisable to do. However, we would have to make clear any difference between that and what the have to do. If we tell a developer that they have to do something that is not required by law and has not been requested by any regulatory authority (=local authority)".
I think this is a very Colcuttian argument that a consultant is the representative at the enemy's court. The basic gist of the argument is that the consultant in his suit and nice car persuades the client that out of the goodness of their heart they persuade the client to spend there money (or their share holders') doing what is right. This was the case before Nov 1990 and the introduction of PPG 16 - that is this was the argument that consultants deployed twenty years ago. I would suggest that this idea is archaic.
If SAMs or AAI are not involved what is the statutory basis? I think it is inpudent to tell a client that they have do something which cannot be legally enforced. Ask them, yes - tell them, no. Telling them they must do something will normally just make them say no as a point of principle. Explain the important, yes - find out if they are closet time team watchers or amateur archaeologists, yes and appeal to their better nature, yes. But tell them?
Dr Peter Wardle