Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
As a curator I can only recommend what is reasonable and justifiable on the information held at the SMR. If I did not the planning officers would probably start not accepting my recommendations. They are the ones who make the final judgements not the curator.
In this sense it is not that different to being a consultant. In a number of cases I have had consultants make recommendations which are above and beyond what I would have suggested. I have simply accepted them.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
So the reality is that all the elements of commercial archaeology, Consultants, Contractors, AND Curators, only need to advise and abide by the minimum requirements of the law. (Who exactly is pushing for more to be done? EH? Rescue?) If there's a better argument for planning law being beefed up than that I haven't heard it.
Dr Pete, the zero tolerance, draconian regime you see is meaningless if it is only on paper. Which I think it already is, but will become worse when local authority curatorial departments are further dismantled.
Perhaps the rules need to be made less draconian, but the regulatory powers beefed up. But I suppose that would cost money.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
My previous post seems to have started a bit of a barney, and is getting criticism from both sides - from Dr Peter Wardle, who thinks that I am unethically suggesting that I can tell a client to do things he doesn't have to; and from Mercenary and others, who think that I am justifying recommending the minimum requirement.
Actually, both sides have misunderstood what I said. The point I meant to get across was that a consultant does not work in isolation; we are constrained (just like anyone else) by the legislative and regulatory framework that we work under.
On Dr Pete's point, he has got my original point completely back to front. I didn't propose to tell a client to do anything extra - what I said was that we could advise them on best practice, or what is advisable to do in their own interests (e.g. for risk reduction), as long as we also identify what is their actual requirement to comply with legal or regulatory requirements. They can then make an informed choice. Note here that some clients want to work to best practice, and others will recognise that sticking to minimum legal requirements may leave them exposed to more risk.
On Mercenary's point, again he has misunderstood. I do not use this argument for justifying the minimum. I will always advise the client on what is necessary to achieve the objective (e.g. a proper evaluation) on the basis of best practice. However, if a curator then issues a planning brief which specifies a meaninglessly-small sample of less than 1%, what am I to do? conceal it from the client? This is a real case, where we had prepared the client for a requirement of up to 5%. It was the curator, not my firm, that cut the sample.
On Mercenary's question to me - yes, I do feel good about my role. I am confident that my involvement in any project has always resulted in the archaeology being better protected and/or being more effectively investigated than would have been the case if there was no consultant involved.
Bear in mind as well that the bulk of most consultants' work is in EIA, where the focus is on preventing the impacts from happening (or reducing them) in the first place, before we ever get close to a field investigation.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I wasnot suggesting that there was anything unethical about pointing out the options to the client. Exacatly the opposite. The point is why should people do more than absolutely neccessary unless it is in their interests to do so.
In many situations doing more than neccessary is simply not an option.
If developers choose to do more we should be thanking them.
I would suggest a more pragmatic less arbitary system would be better with the resources to see it through would be better. Less work for consultants though.
Peter Wardle
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Chocs away.... well letter anyway... I will report back on their reply!
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Chocs away.... well letter anyway... I will report back on their reply!
I bet you a free SMR search that you don't get one.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I was polite
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
It's goood to see Northamptonshire Archaeology advertising for staff - hopefully archaeological work isn't quite finished up there yet (assuming of course that they're not having to chase jobs outside the County now they have no Curatorial set-up).
Did you ever get a reply to your letter Mr. Hosty? Do I owe you that free SMR search?? [xx(]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Curator Kid
It's goood to see Northamptonshire Archaeology advertising for staff - hopefully archaeological work isn't quite finished up there yet (assuming of course that they're not having to chase jobs outside the County now they have no Curatorial set-up).
Call me an old cynic (amongst other things) but.... I am guessing that the clause in the job advert for the Northampton posts requiring
'a willingness to work anywhere in the UK', kind of infers that they are now archaeologists based in Northampton rather than a Northants-dedicated unit.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Very remiss of me to not say I recieved a letter from Northamptonshire County Council Chief Exec... acknowledging the 'changes' which represent a value for money objective exercise in ensureing the stakehodlders achieve a .....blah blah etcccc....
Now the truth that comes out is that a) Myk Flitcroft is still acting in a role that 'equates' to what he did before. b) there is a shuffling of money and feet.
It is true though that Councils are asked to provide more services for less money... I will be interseted to see if the reshuffle has that effect or just weakens the whole system.
Another day another WSI?
