27th June 2008, 03:01 PM
Many curators state in briefs that the work must be done to the IFA standards (I'm using that as a shorthand term, by the way), whether the organisation/individual is a member or not.
However, not all archaeological work is subject to curatorial (as in a planning context)control/regulation.
For example, I cam across a case a few years ago where a landowner, who wanted to prevent a large linear scheme from crossing their land, had asked a local unit to undertake evaluation work. This was undertaken without discussion/agreement with the local curator and the report was not submitted to the SMR. (as the linear scheme didn't go that way anyway, the question of whether this would have been acceptable as evidence didn't come up). The IFA standards state (if I remember rightly) that you should inform the local curator and agree a WSI even if the work is outside the planning framework. But if the organisation or individuals involved are not members of IFA, there is no way to insist that they agree their work or are monitored (as far as I can see).
However, not all archaeological work is subject to curatorial (as in a planning context)control/regulation.
For example, I cam across a case a few years ago where a landowner, who wanted to prevent a large linear scheme from crossing their land, had asked a local unit to undertake evaluation work. This was undertaken without discussion/agreement with the local curator and the report was not submitted to the SMR. (as the linear scheme didn't go that way anyway, the question of whether this would have been acceptable as evidence didn't come up). The IFA standards state (if I remember rightly) that you should inform the local curator and agree a WSI even if the work is outside the planning framework. But if the organisation or individuals involved are not members of IFA, there is no way to insist that they agree their work or are monitored (as far as I can see).