"role is fulfilled by the IFA..."

[historic building]

To discharge a condition it is necessary to determine that the work has been undertaken to a sufficient standard. I am refusing to discharge a number of conditions at the moment because the work undertaken by a certain individual within an organisation has not been of a necessary standard to answer the requirements of the brief.

I can only recommend to the planner that the condition not be discharged; and I can only hope that the developer has not yet paid the bill to help with the leverage on this issue.

The organisation in question is not an RAO and to my knowledge the individual is not in the IFA (according to the 2005 handbook).

[1man1desk]

To answer 'invisible man's questions:

At present, so far as I know, the IFA would have no authority to enter a site, but they could change the rules to make RAO's let them on. No one else would have to.

If work is not done to standard, then disciplinary action could be taken against the organisation (if it is an RAO) or against the person responsible for the work (most likely a PO, PM or unit manager, not an individual digger), if they were a member (any grade) of the IFA.

You are entirely right about the respective roles of curator, consultant and hypothetical inspector.

Note that IFA standards would only apply automatically where the unit is an RAO or the person in charge is a member of the IFA. Otherwise, they only apply if:
1. the unit voluntarily subjects itself to them;
2. they are required by the Contract;
3. the curator has made them part of the requirement for discharging the planning condition.

Under 1-3 above, enforcement would be by the consultant (if there is one), employer, or curator. The IFA would still only have disciplinary powers over members and RAOs, even where IFA standards are being applied.

My point in my last two posts on this thread was to demonstrate the impracticality of a nationwide, pro-active 'policing' role for the IFA or any other professional association. If anyone can do it, it would be either EH or local curators. The IFA role should be to investigate alleged breaches by members/RAOs that are reported to them, and to discipline members/RAOs if the complaint is upheld.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

Absolutely, that was the underlying purpose of my question 2 posts ago on what exactly did the police enthusiasts want them to do. It was something of a trick question.

My last post was intended to add to, or supplement, your previous arguments about impracticality.



We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[troll]

14070 archaeological interventions a year.Optional and un-policed standards.Competative tendering.All carried out under the maxim of"minimum".Am I alone when I voice concern and disgust at this? If I had one wish, I would like to live another lifetime or two so that I can watch as historians peg together a national history/identity from the detritus laughingly described as an archive.There is indeed "a great need for a strong, authoritative body to ensure effective self-regulation".

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[historic building]

well in some counties the County Archaeological team require contractors and consultants to sign up to a set of standards, and, as in most counties, these are enforced by the curatorial team. For example Cheshire:
http://www.cheshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...elines.pdf

This for example, appears to work relatively well.

[Grubby]

What about a system of licensing which was regulated and enforced by local or indeed national authorities?

[historic building]

In theory PPG16 requires archaeologists to be suitably qualified and they can be required to demonstrate their qualification prior to their inclusion on an open list of contractors which may be supplied by a curator with a brief. One issue would be whether the IFA would support a curator in removing an individual or organisation from the list if their work is not up to standard, and whether we would be supported in advising developers if they employed such an organisation they would be unlikely to get their condition discharged.

[Cautionary Tale]

quote:Originally posted by historic building

whether we would be supported in advising developers if they employed such an organisation they would be unlikely to get their condition discharged.

This is an interesting point. When commissioning work, part of the decision making process should be does the contractor have the ability (logistic and financial) to complete the work. A consultant can make such a recommendation in the clients interests (in discharging the condition), so I would hope a curator could make such a suggestion for the good of the site in question - otherwise I do know of curators who can levy a charge for site monitoring (though very rarely do): might this be a way of circumventing this issue (short term) to allow for increased monitoring?

Of the Clan Sutton

[historic building]

Interesting idea about charging. I know that some counties do reserve the right to charge. The charge would have to be necessary to actually raise enough money to pay for, at least, a part-time curator over the year though to make it worth while.

[Curator Kid]

It's difficult to justify charging for monitoring; - it would be a bit like the council putting an extra tax on developments, and then there are questions about what do you use the money for? Financing the monitoring service? Don't want to go there...!

We've discussed the possibility of charging for excessive monitoring in the past (ie over and above what would normally be carried out), as a sort of way of charging for the extra work dodgy contractors cause, but never got beyond the theoretical stage. I'd be interested to know if anyone actually implemented a similar idea. I have charged a developer a fee for the extrememly complicated and time consuming amount of work he put me through for the production of a Section 106 legal agreement however.