28th October 2011, 04:56 PM
tmsarch Wrote: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?In the rush to polarise this debate into a ?for or against the IfA? question, it strikes me that we are missing the wood for the trees. The point is that curators are already influencing who gets to work in ?their? patch by advising applicants of contractors who have undertaken similar work:
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.
tmsarch Wrote:?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.?
Applicants, getting a whiff of life made easy, are likely to only seek quotes from the names provided by the curator. This sometimes works in our favour, sometimes not. As a barrier to entry it is opaque and open to bias. By ensuring that only RO?s can qualify for work, it is merely clarifying the selection process with recourse to an externally verifiable source. As a regulatory move it is not only fair, but also seen to be fair ? an essential prerequisite to a proper functioning competitive market.
We need to move much much further in this direction. Commercial archaeology?s problems are structural, and solutions therefore need to be found at that level.