26th May 2011, 07:54 PM
I may not have made myself particularly clear in relation to what I think the benefits would be if there were standards in place for what a HER should and shouldn't do. Basically, the main one would be a greater degree of consistency across the country, so you'd know that each HER should be following the same processes. In your case, Unit, I assume that you'd be in favour of standards that said that evaluation should be required pre-determination - if this was the case, but the HER (or more realistically, the planner) decided that post-det evaluation was OK, you'd be able to say 'hold on there, you're not acting in accordance with the IFA guidelines'.
Similarly, I'd like to see something that sets out standards for accessing information held in the HER, so that you'd know in advance what you'll be charged for and what you're entitled to see for free, rather than the current mish-mash and piecemeal approach - again, if a HER attempts to charge for access to information that the guidance document says should be freely available, then you can point to the standards and ask why they're not acting in accordance with them.
I'd also like to see something that sets out in black and white the divisions that should be in place if one organisation is acting as both curator and contractor - this arguement was rehearsed on another thread, and I know I didn't have a lot of support, but I've never been comfortable with the situation where one company is both specifying the level of work while at the same time tendering for it. However, I think it may be more of a problem in the future, as in-house services are shut down and commercial companies move into the role of running HERs. Indeed, this is perhaps one reason for the IFA attempting to put these standards in place now - with the various cuts to Council services, a document that sets out what a HER should do may be important in ensuring than any HER functions outsourced to private companies continue to be provided to the same service-levels. Basically, it could help prevent Councils from cutting HERs if they know that any private company taking on the work would have to meet the same standards, which would likely mean the same amount of time and potentially the same cost.
Apologies to Gnomeking is this post is insufficiently PASSIONATE:face-stir:
Similarly, I'd like to see something that sets out standards for accessing information held in the HER, so that you'd know in advance what you'll be charged for and what you're entitled to see for free, rather than the current mish-mash and piecemeal approach - again, if a HER attempts to charge for access to information that the guidance document says should be freely available, then you can point to the standards and ask why they're not acting in accordance with them.
I'd also like to see something that sets out in black and white the divisions that should be in place if one organisation is acting as both curator and contractor - this arguement was rehearsed on another thread, and I know I didn't have a lot of support, but I've never been comfortable with the situation where one company is both specifying the level of work while at the same time tendering for it. However, I think it may be more of a problem in the future, as in-house services are shut down and commercial companies move into the role of running HERs. Indeed, this is perhaps one reason for the IFA attempting to put these standards in place now - with the various cuts to Council services, a document that sets out what a HER should do may be important in ensuring than any HER functions outsourced to private companies continue to be provided to the same service-levels. Basically, it could help prevent Councils from cutting HERs if they know that any private company taking on the work would have to meet the same standards, which would likely mean the same amount of time and potentially the same cost.
Apologies to Gnomeking is this post is insufficiently PASSIONATE:face-stir:
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum