5th March 2009, 03:39 PM
I think point 11 is a reference to the generic PPG16 condition:
"No development shall take place within the area indicated (this would be the area of archaeological interest) until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been approved by the Planning Authority"
...and the need to develop a set of more specific models for conditions which are bit tighter.
In response to 1man, who is lucky to find himself at the 'top end', I have to say that further down the chain competing for work for small-scale jobs is extremely difficult and not very profitable.
To provide balance, I have to say that my own experience is the other way about. I have tendered for work through a number of major national consultancies with negative results because my price has been too high as a result of my concern to maintain standards - both of archaeological recording and other issues such as health and safety.
Many of us run archaeological units with a committment to quality, but are being squeezed out at the lower end of the market by insufficiently rigorous curatorial briefs, or by pricing factors.
"No development shall take place within the area indicated (this would be the area of archaeological interest) until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been approved by the Planning Authority"
...and the need to develop a set of more specific models for conditions which are bit tighter.
In response to 1man, who is lucky to find himself at the 'top end', I have to say that further down the chain competing for work for small-scale jobs is extremely difficult and not very profitable.
Quote:quote:This approach, and the encouragement it gives consultants to emphasise quality, can only help to push up standards, often against the furious opposition of the archaeological units.
To provide balance, I have to say that my own experience is the other way about. I have tendered for work through a number of major national consultancies with negative results because my price has been too high as a result of my concern to maintain standards - both of archaeological recording and other issues such as health and safety.
Many of us run archaeological units with a committment to quality, but are being squeezed out at the lower end of the market by insufficiently rigorous curatorial briefs, or by pricing factors.