Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
30th January 2006, 11:07 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Kitty
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Arial" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[i]I'd have real trouble justifying an eval on a 1 house development, unless it was on a SAM. It's not just a case of me feeling bad for the smaller developers - I have to look reasonable in the eyes of the planning inspector too. If archaeology at a site becomes prohibitvely expensive then it's up to me to justify why that development can't go ahead (normally by recommending that the local authority refuse planning permission on the grounds of archaeology). It's my reputation on the line in a situation like this. I've got teeth, don't get me wrong, but I have to be absolutely certain that I'm justified in using them before I begin asking for eval!
[/quote]
I take it from comments that you are a curator? To have real problems justifying an evaluation when that is really the basic level. What about your reputation as an archaeologist? Watching briefs are worse than useless!! When you do find something, generally it is such a limited view the correct context cannot be judged!
If a small developer buys a plot with high archaeological potential it's a shame but they should maybe have completed pre-purchase checks (in the same way as if you buying a house).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
3rd February 2006, 12:39 PM
1man1desk-That has to be one of the scariest but frank, indictements of the consulting industry I have ever heard.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
3rd February 2006, 01:41 PM
Why? It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. There are one or two misunderstandings about who can do what and when in a construction contract but what the heck. If an archaeological consultant wanted a drain run changed he would have to ring the architect to get it changed and an Instruction issued. He cannot instruct a building contractor. There will be financial effects and of course the consultant is not qualified to adjust drainage designs. Similarly the standard contract has provisions for Antiquities, but again only the architect/contract administrator could instruct the (building) contractor to stop work: a phone call would be required.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2004
7th February 2006, 06:03 PM
Ah Troll, dont take on so. 1man,s comment was valid, I am getting increasingly sick of standing in a field with a "supervisor" (ie 12 months experience)asking me in a panicky voice what I think the structure is hes just found in trench 2 and what should he do next? Whilst the project manager is in head office 200 miles away. 1mans comment is more an indictment of contracting units who field cheap inexperienced diggers who dont know what they are doing.Come to think of it, as consultant,wouldnt it be 1mans job to read the C.Vs of the staff he overseas?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
7th February 2006, 08:11 PM
No. He will no doubt have satisfied himself that the contractors he invited to tender are suitable for the contract. He may well have asked for details of the senior staff to be allocated to the contract, quite possibly after the award of the contract but before work commences. The majority of the staff will be the responsibilty of the contractor.
I make these assumptions, with apologies to 1man for so doing, by direct analogy with other related industries and professions.
It is the contractor who is engaged, by the employer, to carry out the work, and his responsibilties include ensuring that staff are competent for the tasks allocated to them, and for over-seeing them.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
7th February 2006, 09:48 PM
Greetings all.My issue is with the following:
1."I never allow the contractor to go direct to the curator"
I don`t like this for a number of reasons.Mainly, the curator is a representative/servant (take yer pick) of the tax-paying public.His/her job is involved in the curation of a publically owned resource. Sorry consultants-I find this concept arrogant in the extreme.In my experience, consultants seem to make a habit of this.Nothing short of the curator literally handing the finite resource over to the private sector on a plate.Have a fantastic example of this very practise and the price the archaeology had to pay.
2."grief with curators is a problem for them(clients) and they prefer to avoid it"
I bet they bloody do.So, let me get this nice and clear... consultants feel that they have the right to deny contractors access to the curators? Is this standard practise? I spent nearly 16 months functioning under an identical regime.I have never seen such contrived butchery before or since.
Alfie-greetings! I have no issue with what you say sir.Lots of us are forced to work with the incompetent.Lots of us are forced to work for the incompetent too. My issue here is with the closed shop of consultancies and certain contractors who together-can basically do as they please.Not happy about this at all.I want my curator to have a direct line with contractors-sorry but clients don`t own the archaeology despite owning the land.Quite how a consultancy can dictate the terms of active local Government curatorship is beyond me.Frankly, if my experience of consultancies can be seen as a general rule of thumb-they desperately need to be policed.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2004
8th February 2006, 01:24 PM
I agree Troll- I feel less generous today.I have just got off the phone to a consultant who has never even visited my part of the country who has advised his client that the brief I have set for a massive site is too onerous on the grounds of cost; he didnt know about two of the most important and famous sites which are two and 1.5 kilometeres from the current site respectively and he suggests that his client might allow access for a watching brief. I think that if he ever gets a contractor on to site they will need direct access to someone who knows what they are talking about.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
8th February 2006, 10:27 PM
Evening Alfie.Does`nt surprise me at all I`m sorry to say.For me, the mechanics of the entire "system" as it stands today is lacking in control.In regards to the client and their "might allow access for a watching brief" statement-might they bloody really? Since when does a glorified builder and their "consultant" golf-partners dictate terms to a local government officer? The incompetence of some consultancies is something that desperately needs attention. The consultancy I worked for completely ignored entire archaeological periods in DBAs, allowed the demolition of listed buildings and subsequently fabricated reports on them, allowed their clients a free rein, consistantly covered-up their transgressions, made post-ex reports up.Whilst there were a small number of very committed and obviously talented professionals, the majority should`nt have been trusted with a plastic frisbee.And guess what? Yep. They were and still are an IFA RAO.The word "consultant" and the tag "IFA" seems to be enough for some to be completely convinced of integrity and professionalism.The bit that sticks in my throat is that this sort of detritus is not only alive and well (and has been since ppg16) but, seems to assume the right to dictate terms to a public representative.At one time, I`d have given my right testicle for a job in planning archaeology.Don`t think it`s for me...short fuse.....long reach...
Oh yeah-"Too onerous in terms of cost"??? Then they should consider building manky, poorly-fabricated beige and magnolia starter homes elsewhere?Failing that, build the silly warehouse-shaped apartments with comedy wavy rooves elsewhere? One of these days....
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
8th February 2006, 11:22 PM
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
9th February 2006, 02:45 PM
Perhaps it is the system that you should attack, rather than the roles resulting from it. However I do not see how the developer in this case has dictated to to the LPA: his agent the consultant has made a counter-proposal that the LPA may or may not consider acceptable. Surely both parties have to justify their stance?
The system has been set up to allow an applicant to challenge planner's advice and/or conditions, as applies to issues other than archaeology. There are certainly pros and cons with this somewhat adverserial sytem, but given that we have it, one would think that Alfie would be able to stick to his guns and demonstrate that his view should prevail in this case.
No doubt your other examples are too long ago for you to report them to the IFA or the Hotline. I'm not sure how a consultant can permit demolition of a Listed Building though!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
