Contractor's lists

[Noddy]

http://www.york.gov.uk/leisure/Local_his...rch_sites/

quote:There are seven Areas of Archaeological Importance (AAI's) in York. These are listed in Appendix D of the City of York Local Plan.

If you want to carry out work in one of these areas that disturbs, tips material on or floods the ground, you must complete an operations notice and send it to us. You can download an operations notice on the right hand side of this page. We will validate the notice and send it to the York Archaeological Trust (YAT), who will respond to the notice in one of the following ways:

that it has no interest in the operation, or
that it wishes to observe and record the operations (an archaeological watching brief), or
that it wishes to excavate the site in advance of the operation taking place. In this case the YAT can claim a period of up to four months and two weeks to carry out an excavation. You will not be under any duty to pay for the costs of any esulting archaeological work.
It is an offence to start work within six weeks of submitting the operations notice or to start work within an area of archaeological importance without completing an operations notice. It is also an offence to use a metal detector within an AAI.

While this isn't directly related to contractor lists as such I've never understood how, in the era of PPG16, polluter pays and all that, York City Council can force developers to use one contractor in the centre of York. Does this happen in other areas of the country? Is it just that I'm misreading this? After the 4 months and 2 weeks can the developer choose their own contractor/consultant? And what happens with post-ex costs? Why does the council not act as curator in these areas, and instead pass it on to a contractor? Am I being overly cynical about the situation??!!

[BAJR Host]

What is this predetermined Contractors list? There can be lists of people who have successfully shown they are able to carry out the work they claim to within that county.

Threfore a new person/company has to show they are capable (so lists like the RO scheme are useful - as they do provide a mark of potential)

?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake

[shovelnomore]

Reasons for this are probably

1) 1979 Act is still in force (yes...) and under that act, YAT are the competent body (or similar- I can't remember the exact wording) who have to be notified, and potentially who decide what is required.

2) the 1979 act refers to 'work in one of these areas that disturbs, tips material on or floods the ground'. This is not a planning prompt, but refers to all work, including that which is carried out under PD rights.

3) PPG 16 still rules for planning in York because a) most developers would prefer to have a process that is staged and carried out on a timetable that they have some contol over, rather than YAT turning up on day 1 and saying 'stop', like they did in the 1980s, and b) while YAT have the right to step in, the developer doesn't have to pay them to do it, so now that they aren't funded directly by central government, they'd have to be pretty sure of external funding to actually step in.

4) the situation in the AAI's, particularly York were the reason for the Ove Arup/Martin Carver report that was the precursor of PPG16, and really introduced the idea of mitigation by design. York CC were actually one of the main drivers for this as it was felt that the designation was driving developers away. And yes, York has its own archaeologist, who is very much active in DC and PPG16 work.

Keep up lad!

(edited for coherence and sarcasm)

[BAJR Host]

Yellow Pete... you seem to know a little about things.. but not enough.. are you asking to learn? or what?



?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake

[tmsarch]

quote:Originally posted by Noddy

http://www.york.gov.uk/leisure/Local_his...rch_sites/

quote:There are seven Areas of Archaeological Importance (AAI's) in York. These are listed in Appendix D of the City of York Local Plan.

If you want to carry out work in one of these areas that disturbs, tips material on or floods the ground, you must complete an operations notice and send it to us. You can download an operations notice on the right hand side of this page. We will validate the notice and send it to the York Archaeological Trust (YAT), who will respond to the notice in one of the following ways:

that it has no interest in the operation, or
that it wishes to observe and record the operations (an archaeological watching brief), or
that it wishes to excavate the site in advance of the operation taking place. In this case the YAT can claim a period of up to four months and two weeks to carry out an excavation. You will not be under any duty to pay for the costs of any esulting archaeological work.
It is an offence to start work within six weeks of submitting the operations notice or to start work within an area of archaeological importance without completing an operations notice. It is also an offence to use a metal detector within an AAI.

While this isn't directly related to contractor lists as such I've never understood how, in the era of PPG16, polluter pays and all that, York City Council can force developers to use one contractor in the centre of York. Does this happen in other areas of the country? Is it just that I'm misreading this? After the 4 months and 2 weeks can the developer choose their own contractor/consultant? And what happens with post-ex costs? Why does the council not act as curator in these areas, and instead pass it on to a contractor? Am I being overly cynical about the situation??!!

My understanding is that...

York is an Area of Archaeological Importance under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act of 1979. Under this act the Secretary of State has designated YAT as the investigating authority within the AAI. There are only five AAIs in the country - York plus Hereford, Canterbury, Chester and Exeter.

AAI designation offers additional protection to PPG16. The developer must inform the designated investigating authority of their intention to develop at least six weeks before the commencement of works by submitting an 'operations notice'.

The operations notice needs to be served before any works are undertaken that are intended to disturb the ground - including dumping or deliberate flooding and as such cover permitted development rights and pre-planning works as well as those which fall under PPG16

PPG15/16 is still applicable in York and the other AAI and the Local Planning Authority (or their archaeological advisors) will still determine/condition work which is subject to planning legislation in the same way as the rest of England.

Edit: shovelnomore - just noticed you must have replied at the same time as I was responding - apologies for repeating

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by Blacktusk

So its typically small `one man bands` who usually produce pretty poor to sub-standard work? I have worked with a number of small, medium and large companies who also produce `pretty poor to sub-standard work` and they get away with it. I think it all depends on who the person managing the project is, and if they have the experience, dedication and professionalism to undertake the work, it does not matter if they work alone or part of a large organisation.

As I said in the initial post, this was not intended to be an attack on one-man-bands, it just happens in my experience, in the region I am working, those guilty of the worst work are individuals. There are other one-man-bands who produce perfectly good work, and I'm not saying that the larger and indeed largest organisations are faultless, because they aren't. Far from it!

My points are (taking into account some of what has been said) -

1. Why have a list that allows people who are known to be a bit rubbish advertise for free? (Indeed, it could be argued that such lists are inadvertantly viewed as 'recommendations' by developers even when they explicity say they are not).

2. Having lists that include everyone interested in working in an area allows the developer to get quotes from masses of people for very little effort, thus enabling them to get the very cheapest price, encouraging 'poaching' of work into other areas, further damaging the pay and conditions of archaeologists (you might start working for someone who typically operates the county in which they are based, and next thing find you are expected to work two counties away and travel an additional hour or two to site for no extra pay). The worst/most amusing manifestation of this is organisations opening an 'office' (by which I mean an employee's house or a PO box) in another area just to get on that regional list. I can't imagine another profession where it would be as easy to get quotes from maybe 30-40 companies at the press of a button - if I want to find a builder I have to either rely on word of mouth, someone I have worked with before, or go through the phone book. I can't just get a list from the council of all the builders working in the area (and perhaps as many again working in the adjoining say 50 miles) and then contact them all with a single email! If that were possible I suspect the building trade would be up in arms.

The example mentioned in York (however that actually works) also suggests that there is some unevenness in the way these things work, and there are certainly cosy relationships between the curators and certain units in some areas, which make the list a bit pointless. I also think that scrapping the lists would allow a greater degree of local expertise to develop, which would be a healthy thing in many cases.

[Oxbeast]

When I rectntly needed a builder and roofer, my first port of call was the Federation of Master Builders and the Guild of Master Craftsmen. I wouldn't expect to be able to ring the building control officer, and ask him to recommend contractors. And if he did, they might well not be suitable, and accustomed to knocking up hundreds of new builds, or schools on PFI schemes or something.

I also got a nice regional list of surveyors through the RICS website. They weren't all local by any means, some of them were based 60 miles away, but if they were willing to work in my area, they came up.

I agree with you that the line between a list and a recommendation is a pretty fine one. If the list indicates 'a mark of potential' for people who have successfully carried out work in that area, surely a developer just hears 'recommended'.

i wonder if this is widespread in other aspects of planning, ie. lists of herpetology companies, asbestos removal, newt wranglers, etc, etc.

[BAJR Host]

It is almost as if you need something like this..
http://www.bajr.org/RACSmap/default.asp

oh... hold on... it does.. I will be contacting curatorial services to let them know about it.


?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

When I rectntly needed a builder and roofer, my first port of call was the Federation of Master Builders and the Guild of Master Craftsmen. I wouldn't expect to be able to ring the building control officer, and ask him to recommend contractors. And if he did, they might well not be suitable, and accustomed to knocking up hundreds of new builds, or schools on PFI schemes or something.

I also got a nice regional list of surveyors through the RICS website. They weren't all local by any means, some of them were based 60 miles away, but if they were willing to work in my area, they came up.

I agree with you that the line between a list and a recommendation is a pretty fine one. If the list indicates 'a mark of potential' for people who have successfully carried out work in that area, surely a developer just hears 'recommended'.

i wonder if this is widespread in other aspects of planning, ie. lists of herpetology companies, asbestos removal, newt wranglers, etc, etc.

Newt wranglers! Nice.

Aren't these lists a bit like looking at the IFA directory though? I assuming that they don't just include anyone that wants to be in them. Speaking of which, does the IFA have an online list of its members? A sort of IFA version of what BAJR has? If not, it should, I shall investigate...

They do, although only for RAOs as far as I can tell from a 30 second investigation. Plus it also has the downside for developers that when you search a region basically every RAO comes up, which is probably a little off putting. Presumably this is because when asked which regions they work in the all tick the 'all' box. I think that muight be even more unhelpful.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

I wonder if this is widespread in other aspects of planning, ie. lists of herpetology companies, asbestos removal, newt wranglers, etc, etc.

I recently needed to replace some windows at the front of my house and as I live in a conservation area, the work has restrictions as to design and material and requires planning permission. I sought the advice of the a 'conservation' officer at our local planning office who was happy to give me the 'list' of local craftsmen able to make the windows (list total: 1 person) and those able to fit them (list total: 1 firm). So I don't think the archaeology parallel is that unusual and definetly not unique....



With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...