2nd September 2006, 09:49 PM
Was actually discussing the Single COntext system (SCS) tuther day...
SCS should be now standard.. though SCS planning should only really be needed in deep strat urban sites - May as well draw all the contexts on one plan in rural site (unless it is very complicated.
However back to the original question... until curators actually sing from the same hymn sheet... as in one curators 20% eval is anothers watching brief... or one might be more hands on than another... I also like the fact that as a contractor / consultant (outwith my counties) I am wise to all the scams and tweaks that one might try to get a job and satisfy a client as well as the curator... ie... trench locations.... percentages, bit of science bafflement! etc.... So I don't fall for it. (not saying anyone trys of course)
If the WSI from the contractor says they will do x y and z... but in the end they only do x and z they had better have a good excuse for it... otherwise the condition has not been met... and the planning condition has actually been breached. Now of course what you might not be aware of is COntractor A talking to Curator B during the course of the work... and agreeing to changes.. Which might be justified... (or maybe not) The question would be ... has the BA horizon been damaged by construction work? The other is - what were the exact requirements for/from the WSI.... the final one would be... Did the Curator agree to hte site ending in this manner (it seems clear that they were made aware.)
As Barnesy said... If the COntractor fulfilled the spec to the letter.. then it is up to the curator to come up with a case that must be accepted by the planning department (who of course could ignore the advice - Roll on Statutory Power!!)
Another day another WSI?
SCS should be now standard.. though SCS planning should only really be needed in deep strat urban sites - May as well draw all the contexts on one plan in rural site (unless it is very complicated.
However back to the original question... until curators actually sing from the same hymn sheet... as in one curators 20% eval is anothers watching brief... or one might be more hands on than another... I also like the fact that as a contractor / consultant (outwith my counties) I am wise to all the scams and tweaks that one might try to get a job and satisfy a client as well as the curator... ie... trench locations.... percentages, bit of science bafflement! etc.... So I don't fall for it. (not saying anyone trys of course)
If the WSI from the contractor says they will do x y and z... but in the end they only do x and z they had better have a good excuse for it... otherwise the condition has not been met... and the planning condition has actually been breached. Now of course what you might not be aware of is COntractor A talking to Curator B during the course of the work... and agreeing to changes.. Which might be justified... (or maybe not) The question would be ... has the BA horizon been damaged by construction work? The other is - what were the exact requirements for/from the WSI.... the final one would be... Did the Curator agree to hte site ending in this manner (it seems clear that they were made aware.)
As Barnesy said... If the COntractor fulfilled the spec to the letter.. then it is up to the curator to come up with a case that must be accepted by the planning department (who of course could ignore the advice - Roll on Statutory Power!!)
Another day another WSI?