IFA RO only as approved contractors

[vulpes]

Can I ask if councils only allow planning applications from architects who are Chartered?

No, but then Zaha Hadid doesn't build domestic extensions. She did build Glasgow a rather large garage though. :face-approve:

[Dinosaur]

I personally would also like to see a 'length of membership' qualification enacted whereas an ordinary member of the Institute cannot become Chartered until they have fulfilled 1 year and a day as an ordinary member....

Ah, so in fact you would like anyone not already a member of IFA to go out of business in the year and a day when they were prevented from trading?

[Dinosaur]

.....or are you suggesting that they could operate on probation for that year as long as they were contributing to IFA's coffers?

[GnomeKing]

to back track - i think Oxbeast has a point

"There is not the slightest evidence of the IfA having teeth because the disciplinary process is secret. There can be no deterrent if any sanction is taken in secret. I've posted before that the IfA seem determined to undermine any credibility that they have through secrecy, unaccountability and uneven application of the rules."

this seems fundamental.

[Marcus Brody]

well I'm 13 and 3/4 and I struggled, really! :face-thinks:

On a more serious note, here's a wee snippet from the IFA article in The Archaeologist, 77, Autumn 2010 p5:

we can now argue authoritatively that with commitment and care about due process, local authorities can choose to require work to be done to IfA Standards, by Registered Organisations; and they can make such provisions through conditions of planning permission.

Sounds quite legit and straightforward to me. I'm only surprised it's taken so long to be applied.

Without wanting to be accused of stating the bleedin' obvious, 'Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?' It's obviously in the interests of the IfA to present this as settled fact, but until it's been tested in court, it's only legal opinion, and given that they were the ones paying for it, it's hardly a huge surprise that their lawyers were able to make an argument for the legality of restricting commercial work to IfA members.

The real crunch will only come when a large and rich developer takes a Council to court because they've been told that they can't use their preferred archaeologist because they're not a member. At that point, one of two things will probably happen; either the Council will want to avoid an expensive court case on an issue that they probably don't really care about and will drop the issue, or they'll look to the IfA for support, only to see them disappear in a cloud of dust when faced with an opponent with the money to employ an even better legal team to put together a counter-argument.

[tmsarch]

The question is.

Do curators see the RO as a kite mark rather than/instead of a company carrying out decent work in their patch?
Do curators rely on the IfA to enforce standards or do they not have the final say on compliance?

I can only answer for myself and other curators may have a different opinion.

Do curators see the RO as a kite mark rather than/instead of a company carrying out decent work in their patch?

No - that is not the case where I work. RO status is one way for a company to demonstrate that they are of a necessary standard to undertake work, but it is not the only one. It?s probably been mentioned already (I've not had time to read all of this thread unfortunately), but ROs can produce poor standards of work, as can no-ROs. But being an RO does mean that there is some additional control/stick to beat with. Personally I would want to be sure that a company undertaking work has the necessary expertise and experience to do so. RO status would be an indicator of such experience, but is not a prerequisite. In general I would put more weight to a contractor who has successfully brought similar projects to completion to a high standard as a better indicator of having the relevant expertise.

Do curators rely on the IfA to enforce standards or do they not have the final say on compliance.
Yes and no - on an individual case basis I am there to ensure that the archaeological project is being undertaken according to the required standard. Any failure to meet the required standards would initially be dealt with on a more informal basis between curator and archaeological contractor (but keeping the LPA and the applicant in the picture). The next stage might be a formal warning to the archaeological contractor and letting the applicant know that they may be subject to enforcement action if they don't ensure their contractor is meeting the required standards (as set out in any agreed brief/specification/method statement approved by the LPA). The next stage might be enforcement action, or the threat of, which falls to the LPA and is taken against the applicant, not their archaeological contractor - this is very rarely needed in my experience.

Where there is a consistent and long-term failure by an individual/organisation to meet the required standards then this is where I would seek to involve the IfA. I accept that this would require either the individual or the responsible post holder to be an individual member of the IfA and/or the organisation to be a RO - but invariably where I am that would seem to be the case anyway.


As an aside from the main thrust of this discussion (IfA RO status being a requirement for undertaking work in an area) I was under the impression that RO status also covers other standards - such as holiday provision for staff, training, career progression. There are standards other than does a piece of work fulfil the requirements of a planning permission. Also not all commercial work is undertaken as a result of a planning consent being in place. Of course non-ROs may choose to meet, or even excede these standards, but there is more to being an RO than basic fieldwork/reporting standards.

The original question was whether a planning authority can require an organisation to be a RO in order to undertake archaeological work required by planning condition. The fact that some LPAs are apparently doing so would suggest yes. Whether this is legal is a different matter - and one that could only be tested by someone formally challenging such a requirement. The IfAs legal advice seems to suggest they feel it is a legally defensible position (but perhaps they would say that) - however this has not been tested. I would hope that any council putting such a policy in place would have also sought their own independent legal advice (and in theory should have undertaken formal public consultation if this is actual council policy?).

There is undoubtedly a second, and slightly different, question arising from the original post - and that is whether it is right for a planning authority to require an organisation to be a RO in order to undertake archaeological work required by planning condition. I suspect the answer to that is always going to be based on an individual?s opinion of the IfA.

[kevin wooldridge]

Ah, so in fact you would like anyone not already a member of IFA to go out of business in the year and a day when they were prevented from trading?

Where did I write or imply that? My exact words were 'Chartered status does not mean that archaeology will become a closed shop, but I am guessing that it might be used as a criterion by curators and/or sponsors' and
'Personally I am tired of the argument for or against the IfA, it strikes me its much more simplistic - in or out. The revealing trend might be that in future, if you want to maximise work opportunities the place to be is in, but no-one is forcing anyone to do anything'

[Martin Locock]

On the question of the efficacy of the disciplinary process, the IfA's casework was independently evaluated a while ago. It is as transparent as it can be given the need to protect the innocent or potentially innocent from prejudicial publicity. It is worth saying that the Code of Conduct is about individual responsibility, which means that it is theoretically possible for an archaeological disaster to clear all those involved because they acted within the Code. This is where the RO scheme's role becomes significant, since it establishes failure at a corporate level.

[GnomeKing]

Ok - but i (and clearly others) have no knowledge of these cases - or the outcome....i know plenty of times when such processes would have maybe achieved things, but never seem to.

Bad practice needs to be outed - even if names/places are hidden.....if only so that we can see what good practice ought not to look like!

[kevin wooldridge]

On the question of the efficacy of the disciplinary process, the IfA's casework was independently evaluated a while ago. It is as transparent as it can be given the need to protect the innocent or potentially innocent from prejudicial publicity. It is worth saying that the Code of Conduct is about individual responsibility, which means that it is theoretically possible for an archaeological disaster to clear all those involved because they acted within the Code. This is where the RO scheme's role becomes significant, since it establishes failure at a corporate level.

Except Martin that it doesn't as there is no corporate membership category within the IfA..... Each RAO has to have a 'responsible' MIFA who in a position of power (not necessarily the head of the organisation) who will effectively carry the can. If an IfA enquiry clears the individuals involved, it also has, by default, to clear the organisation, as neither (at least in IfA terms) exists independently of each other.