27th April 2010, 10:24 PM
In response to Kevin and how PPS-5 can help regulate UK archaeology practice it places the regulation onto two groups; the local planning authorities, but it also places regulation duties on industry
“As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where
necessary given the application’s impact.” HE6.1 of PPS-5
To me this line place the emphasis on the archaeology industry to apply appropriate expertise to assessing the heritage assists. Also it seems that PPS-5 lacks statements on appropriate levels of recording, while PPS-5 states the step needed and considerations for the application of a planning policy in relation to the archaeology it says little on the process of recording.
On this issue of small outfits which Dinosaur suggests, I have to say I personally have little sympathy for smaller outfits which are “better suited” due to the project becoming uneconomical. Has they were not better suited as they could not find a market for their services, while I’m not advocating using methods inappropriately just for the sake of using method “i.e. wet sieving all spoil just because you can wet sieve” but I disagree that smaller outfits should be allowed to run under the “full package” just because they are smaller. Smaller outfits should talor their services to certain needs of the developer focusing on certain types of jobs or face being sqeased by the large more robust outfits.
I try and answer all of the administrator questions one by one.
+ are they fit for purpose? Industry codes of practice are fit for purpose when they are used to resolve issues which negatively affect an industry or to bring a level on quality to an industry.
As shown in the German auto makers speed limits.
+ are the well resourced enough? Some are, some are not. But look at ofcoms reaction to mobile phone companies which were breaking their own codes and now are being subjected to more regulations. While I doubt that government or local authorizes will be beating down the door of archaeology unit which conduct less than adequate recording/surveying of the archaeology, is this really an excuse not to try and form a standard code of practice saying this is the minimum.
+ have they the expertise to recognise good/bad practice within the guidelines? Probably not, but archaeological companies can impress upon developers the benefits of the industry code of practice show a standardization of a certain level of competence. Which intern could lead developers to see the code representing:
. A more aureate level of survey/desk base assessments thus a better understanding of the potential archaeology.
. and many more ideas for selling it to developers.
+ should the client be able to decide this for themselves? Are we not the experts who understand the historic environment, if you buy a house in Spain you go to a Spanish estate agent for his expertise in the local markets.
I’m suggesting an industry driven, industry standard/code of practices which lay out the minimum standards which should be achieved. It would be in the best interests of the archaeology industry to drive up standards allowing for a better product to be offered to our paying custom “the developers” and also our none paying custom “the HER and the public which use it”.
“As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where
necessary given the application’s impact.” HE6.1 of PPS-5
To me this line place the emphasis on the archaeology industry to apply appropriate expertise to assessing the heritage assists. Also it seems that PPS-5 lacks statements on appropriate levels of recording, while PPS-5 states the step needed and considerations for the application of a planning policy in relation to the archaeology it says little on the process of recording.
On this issue of small outfits which Dinosaur suggests, I have to say I personally have little sympathy for smaller outfits which are “better suited” due to the project becoming uneconomical. Has they were not better suited as they could not find a market for their services, while I’m not advocating using methods inappropriately just for the sake of using method “i.e. wet sieving all spoil just because you can wet sieve” but I disagree that smaller outfits should be allowed to run under the “full package” just because they are smaller. Smaller outfits should talor their services to certain needs of the developer focusing on certain types of jobs or face being sqeased by the large more robust outfits.
I try and answer all of the administrator questions one by one.
+ are they fit for purpose? Industry codes of practice are fit for purpose when they are used to resolve issues which negatively affect an industry or to bring a level on quality to an industry.
As shown in the German auto makers speed limits.
+ are the well resourced enough? Some are, some are not. But look at ofcoms reaction to mobile phone companies which were breaking their own codes and now are being subjected to more regulations. While I doubt that government or local authorizes will be beating down the door of archaeology unit which conduct less than adequate recording/surveying of the archaeology, is this really an excuse not to try and form a standard code of practice saying this is the minimum.
+ have they the expertise to recognise good/bad practice within the guidelines? Probably not, but archaeological companies can impress upon developers the benefits of the industry code of practice show a standardization of a certain level of competence. Which intern could lead developers to see the code representing:
. A more aureate level of survey/desk base assessments thus a better understanding of the potential archaeology.
. and many more ideas for selling it to developers.
+ should the client be able to decide this for themselves? Are we not the experts who understand the historic environment, if you buy a house in Spain you go to a Spanish estate agent for his expertise in the local markets.
I’m suggesting an industry driven, industry standard/code of practices which lay out the minimum standards which should be achieved. It would be in the best interests of the archaeology industry to drive up standards allowing for a better product to be offered to our paying custom “the developers” and also our none paying custom “the HER and the public which use it”.