18th November 2011, 08:17 AM
Just to help people compare what is being discussed about contractor searches.
I actually changed to this system 3 years back as it was clear that developers were wanting to find people with more subtle search... ( which is why you look for small medium or large companies - and types of work offered and a town/poscode distance search) I ditched the regional search, as it was abused by people saying... oh, I will work anywhere... which was fine, but then if I was in Llangolan in south wales, I would not want to find an Aberdeenshire contractor in the list.
Am happy to share with the IfA the system if they want.
So IfA RO Search
http://www.archaeologists.net/ROsearch
BAJR Contractor Search over 270 contractors available ( Expand into Europe as well! with over 630 contractors listed)
http://www.bajr.org/RACSmap/
And how are the super units doing? The local small archaeologists are doing well as they can react quickly, have local knowledge, relationships with the local history centre, curators, planners - know the wider archaeology in the area and are cheaper. Get rid of them, and the developer will have to use the super unit...
I would prefer to be wooed not forced
I have talked to a few curators that say - no - we are the ones that actually police the standards. and people have to agree to IfA Standards.
Here is an interesting take.
Local ficticious Archaeologist ACE ARCHAEOLOGY UNIT (please tell me there is not one called that!) has never worked in the county before and is not an RO. but is super cheap and the developer has chosen them - as is their right. The DC Arch sees the Project Design and says.. thats good, fine and well prepared. (if it was not... alarm bells may ring)
Now job is done and it is a bloody disaster, as the archaeologist turns out to be a have a go hero who gained all his knowledge from Time Team who was reading the paper when the cists were machined out ... oooops!
He won't work in that county again.. surely... as they have not carried out a project successfully in the county, indeed have caused a mess. Developer is out of pocket and takes ACE AU to court
If they had been ROs... how would the situation change? Would the archaeology be undamaged? would the developer not still have to take the ACE AU to court? Would the curator be in any stronger a position? etc etc...
Now... tell me that RO is an additional kitemark (bear with me) and I would partially agree. Tell me it is the only kitemark and I would refer the honourable gentlemen to the established fact that Curators are already setting the benchmark - based on IfA Standards.
Once again... the advice on legality is an opinion... not a fact established by law. And nobody seems to be keen to be seen to be saying ROs only. Indeed... if you are a curatorial group that follows this path, do please tell me.
I cannot imagine the council restricting planning to RIBA architects or RICS surveyors - though again you (as the individual) have the right to choose...
Should their be an RO system? well of course - though that is the business of the IfA
Should their be standards? well of course - and the IfA have created these standards.
Should membership be compulsory or you will be put out of work? - Now that's the question.
Answers on a small postcard.
I actually changed to this system 3 years back as it was clear that developers were wanting to find people with more subtle search... ( which is why you look for small medium or large companies - and types of work offered and a town/poscode distance search) I ditched the regional search, as it was abused by people saying... oh, I will work anywhere... which was fine, but then if I was in Llangolan in south wales, I would not want to find an Aberdeenshire contractor in the list.
Am happy to share with the IfA the system if they want.
So IfA RO Search
http://www.archaeologists.net/ROsearch
BAJR Contractor Search over 270 contractors available ( Expand into Europe as well! with over 630 contractors listed)
http://www.bajr.org/RACSmap/
Quote:If being local was such a commercial advantage, we wouldn't have super units surely?
And how are the super units doing? The local small archaeologists are doing well as they can react quickly, have local knowledge, relationships with the local history centre, curators, planners - know the wider archaeology in the area and are cheaper. Get rid of them, and the developer will have to use the super unit...
I would prefer to be wooed not forced
I have talked to a few curators that say - no - we are the ones that actually police the standards. and people have to agree to IfA Standards.
Here is an interesting take.
Local ficticious Archaeologist ACE ARCHAEOLOGY UNIT (please tell me there is not one called that!) has never worked in the county before and is not an RO. but is super cheap and the developer has chosen them - as is their right. The DC Arch sees the Project Design and says.. thats good, fine and well prepared. (if it was not... alarm bells may ring)
Now job is done and it is a bloody disaster, as the archaeologist turns out to be a have a go hero who gained all his knowledge from Time Team who was reading the paper when the cists were machined out ... oooops!
He won't work in that county again.. surely... as they have not carried out a project successfully in the county, indeed have caused a mess. Developer is out of pocket and takes ACE AU to court
If they had been ROs... how would the situation change? Would the archaeology be undamaged? would the developer not still have to take the ACE AU to court? Would the curator be in any stronger a position? etc etc...
Now... tell me that RO is an additional kitemark (bear with me) and I would partially agree. Tell me it is the only kitemark and I would refer the honourable gentlemen to the established fact that Curators are already setting the benchmark - based on IfA Standards.
Once again... the advice on legality is an opinion... not a fact established by law. And nobody seems to be keen to be seen to be saying ROs only. Indeed... if you are a curatorial group that follows this path, do please tell me.
I cannot imagine the council restricting planning to RIBA architects or RICS surveyors - though again you (as the individual) have the right to choose...
Should their be an RO system? well of course - though that is the business of the IfA
Should their be standards? well of course - and the IfA have created these standards.
Should membership be compulsory or you will be put out of work? - Now that's the question.
Answers on a small postcard.