17th April 2011, 01:23 PM
The old MSC was not public participation it was work training where the individuals had entered into a contract of sorts. They could not walk away without loosing benefits (at least that's how I understood it). It was also archaeology that might not have been done otherwise being in the days before PPG 15 & 16. If there is archaeological work that needs to be done as part of planning requirements and unemployed archaeologists then those archaeologist should be employed to do it. Public participation should only ever be an added value . I do hope that there are no curators who would sanction a volunteer group being commissioned to do a commercial job that is required for planning purposes. This is why we need curators and professional guidelines as technically the developer could get the work done anyway he sees fit as long as it meets the requirements of the planning conditions.
The first port of call should be the professionals who should then have the remit to build in public participation ( which if done properly will add to the cost of the job above and beyond what a professional team working alone would charge)
True public participation is not a means of doing the job on the cheap it is a means of adding value whether that is in gathering public support or providing good publicity for the developer. If it ever appears to be a way of doing the job cheaply then staff and volunteers should protest.
I accept in cases there will be non commercial projects for research or pure public engagement where a volunteer team is perfectly acceptable but they must have professional guidance and that could include amateurs trained to a professional level.
Never should an amateur team be undertaking work for free for a client to meet a planning condition. (Though some are perfectly capable of doing the quality of work required). However as long as they have insurance and due regard for health and safety I see nothing under the law that would stop them
The first port of call should be the professionals who should then have the remit to build in public participation ( which if done properly will add to the cost of the job above and beyond what a professional team working alone would charge)
True public participation is not a means of doing the job on the cheap it is a means of adding value whether that is in gathering public support or providing good publicity for the developer. If it ever appears to be a way of doing the job cheaply then staff and volunteers should protest.
I accept in cases there will be non commercial projects for research or pure public engagement where a volunteer team is perfectly acceptable but they must have professional guidance and that could include amateurs trained to a professional level.
Never should an amateur team be undertaking work for free for a client to meet a planning condition. (Though some are perfectly capable of doing the quality of work required). However as long as they have insurance and due regard for health and safety I see nothing under the law that would stop them