27th October 2011, 06:43 PM
BAJR Wrote:The question is.
Do curators see the RO as a kite mark rather than/instead of a company carrying out decent work in their patch?
Do curators rely on the IfA to enforce standards or do they not have the final say on compliance?
I can only answer for myself and other curators may have a different opinion.
Do curators see the RO as a kite mark rather than/instead of a company carrying out decent work in their patch?
No - that is not the case where I work. RO status is one way for a company to demonstrate that they are of a necessary standard to undertake work, but it is not the only one. It?s probably been mentioned already (I've not had time to read all of this thread unfortunately), but ROs can produce poor standards of work, as can no-ROs. But being an RO does mean that there is some additional control/stick to beat with. Personally I would want to be sure that a company undertaking work has the necessary expertise and experience to do so. RO status would be an indicator of such experience, but is not a prerequisite. In general I would put more weight to a contractor who has successfully brought similar projects to completion to a high standard as a better indicator of having the relevant expertise.
Do curators rely on the IfA to enforce standards or do they not have the final say on compliance.
Yes and no - on an individual case basis I am there to ensure that the archaeological project is being undertaken according to the required standard. Any failure to meet the required standards would initially be dealt with on a more informal basis between curator and archaeological contractor (but keeping the LPA and the applicant in the picture). The next stage might be a formal warning to the archaeological contractor and letting the applicant know that they may be subject to enforcement action if they don't ensure their contractor is meeting the required standards (as set out in any agreed brief/specification/method statement approved by the LPA). The next stage might be enforcement action, or the threat of, which falls to the LPA and is taken against the applicant, not their archaeological contractor - this is very rarely needed in my experience.
Where there is a consistent and long-term failure by an individual/organisation to meet the required standards then this is where I would seek to involve the IfA. I accept that this would require either the individual or the responsible post holder to be an individual member of the IfA and/or the organisation to be a RO - but invariably where I am that would seem to be the case anyway.
As an aside from the main thrust of this discussion (IfA RO status being a requirement for undertaking work in an area) I was under the impression that RO status also covers other standards - such as holiday provision for staff, training, career progression. There are standards other than does a piece of work fulfil the requirements of a planning permission. Also not all commercial work is undertaken as a result of a planning consent being in place. Of course non-ROs may choose to meet, or even excede these standards, but there is more to being an RO than basic fieldwork/reporting standards.
The original question was whether a planning authority can require an organisation to be a RO in order to undertake archaeological work required by planning condition. The fact that some LPAs are apparently doing so would suggest yes. Whether this is legal is a different matter - and one that could only be tested by someone formally challenging such a requirement. The IfAs legal advice seems to suggest they feel it is a legally defensible position (but perhaps they would say that) - however this has not been tested. I would hope that any council putting such a policy in place would have also sought their own independent legal advice (and in theory should have undertaken formal public consultation if this is actual council policy?).
There is undoubtedly a second, and slightly different, question arising from the original post - and that is whether it is right for a planning authority to require an organisation to be a RO in order to undertake archaeological work required by planning condition. I suspect the answer to that is always going to be based on an individual?s opinion of the IfA.