"role is fulfilled by the IFA..."

[Cautionary Tale]

Thanks hb and ck. I think I'd come from the view of levying the charge to the contractor (a kind of probation if their standards had slipped?). They could be told in advance that every project they did would have to be monitored more regularly during a set period of time and therefore site visits would be made x times per week during the course of the project (field and post ex). The cost would then be built into their end cost, and could therefore be compared reasonably to all the other quotes from other contractors. There would have to be a process to get to this stage of extended monitoring, but it wouldn't as such be a tax on the developer because they would have the choice between tenders (and the charge would be comensurate to the monitoring visit time and used for that purpose). CK - not been posting long, so if i'm going over old ground apologies [:I]. Could you tell me the original thread?

Of the Clan Sutton

[historic building]

quoteite visits would be made x times per week

Well my eyes are boggling at this point. I think my timetable works out I can do monitoring visits for 1 afternoon a week.

[Cautionary Tale]

quote:Originally posted by historic building

quoteite visits would be made x times per week

Well my eyes are boggling at this point. I think my timetable works out I can do monitoring visits for 1 afternoon a week.

In defense, x could be a fraction

But seriously, point taken - just thinking out loud.

Of the Clan Sutton

[monitor lizard]

At a base level monitoring is ensuring that the agreed scheme is upheld - therefore a necessary part of the planning process and I would think that charging would be difficult to uphold (I don't know how those who do charge are able to justify it). Does anyone know if the Council's structural engineers charge to visit sites when they do the foundation checks? That would be an obvious parallel.

But if you are only going to charge some people, on the grounds that they have previously been crap and need babysitting, how do you make that decision? Would necessitate formalised assurance models and so forth - and what County has the time or money to do that? Will not be as simple as finger pointing you will need to provide vetted proof.

And if you charge everyone equally - a flat tax - then in turn they will need to recieve something other than your friendly smile - and you will have to visit each and every phase of work of each and every site. Including negative watching briefs in the nether regions!

Also, this would all have to be set up through planning - and not tied to a contractual unit. Can't see how you would be being punative as the tenders won't necessarily have gone out at that stage....

ML

[Cautionary Tale]

Yes, all valid points (did I mention I was thinking out loud ). Rest assured i'm not keen on the finger pointing method of getting rid of the chaff. I will readily defer to you as to the need to tie this in to the planning process itself rather than a specific arrangement between curator and contractor.



Of the Clan Sutton

[the invisible man]

Can't see how it could be done at present. The fee for the planning application will already have been set under the county council's scale of charges and will have been paid with the submission, and site inspection visits will be deemed to be included.

The structural engineer, who will work for the district/borough, comes under the Building Regulations, not planning, and in my experience doesn't make many site visits - all their time is spent checking reams of jolly interesting sums. However, the Building Control Officer (Building Inspector, or District Surveyor in Inner London, in old money), makes a number of regular site inspection visits, at certain pre-arranged stages, looking at dpc's and drains and things. The fee for a Building Regs application is paid in two stages, one at submission, and another, the inspection fee paid by the contractor when work starts on site. (Of course these days you can use a private buidling regs person for plans approval).

The system could be changed to resemble the building regs system I suppose.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by Barnesy

CK - not been posting long, so if i'm going over old ground apologies [:I]. Could you tell me the original thread?

Sorry Barnesy - I meant we'd discussed it where I work before, not on BAJR. I'm finding this discussion interesting. As this is an IFA thread however, another question for everyone: Have any of the Curators out there ever been asked by the IFA to comment on whether or not a unit are worthy of RAO status when they've applied or reapplied? I never have, yet I'd have thought a comment from staff involved in the monitoring of professional standards on a day-to-day basis would've been an important indicator.

[historic building]

No never been asked

[monitor lizard]

Nope, me neither. Would make sense.

[BAJR Host]

Nope

Another day another WSI?