16th November 2011, 09:57 PM
Martin Locock Wrote:tmsarch - that's a good point; there is a halfway house where LAs may be choosing to restrict any information on possible contractors to a list of ROs. My understanding is that LAs have the power to do this if they choose, but its actual impact depends on how many developers find their archaeological contractors from the LA: in a mature business (like building) the LA has no real role in funneling work to the industry.
My understanding is that local authorities have no legal requirement to maintain a list of archaeological contractors, and that those who do, do so mainly in response to people asking how they find an archaeologist. Martin is correct that in most cases this question will only be asked by small-scale developers who may need to appoint an archaeologist only once - most large companies will probably have dealt with archaeology in the past, and will have contacts with preferred contractors who they know can do the job. I have no problem with Councils who don't wish to maintain their own list, and who simply direct enquiries about how to find a contractor to some external list (whether this is the IfA, BAJR or the phone book).
Again, however, this is different from what has been proposed on this thread, which was that Councils should only allow ROs to undertake developer-funded commercial fieldwork. I'd agree with tmsarch that if there are Councils who have adopted this policy, there should be no problem with naming them - after all, if this is their formally-adopted policy, it must be in the public domain, as otherwise it would be pointless as no-one would know about it!
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum