15th April 2007, 01:38 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by historic building
(bit pissed, just back from the pub)
The IFA are totally independent from the enforcement teams in the various councils I cover. I can use a judgment they have made, and explain it to a developer or planner independently of whether the council in question support it or are willing to support me. It is a benchmark I can use in support of my work as a curator which cannot be argued with by developers or planners who want an easier life - IT IS DOWN TO THE PLANNER WHETHER SOMETHING IS ENFORCED, IT IS NOT DOWN TO THE CURATORIAL ARCHAEOLOGIST. The IFA gives us a stronger argument to make to the planner. I can repeat myself as often as you chose, probably about once more, curators only advise; planners may have many more reasons than archaeology for making a decision. Making this decision may also include discharging an archaeological condition against the advice of a curator.
God I would love the power to regulate a market however I am an archaeologist I do not work in market management.
Thank you, but I actually know what curators do and do not do, my job is to negotiate contracts and costs for archaeological work and I am well aware of the issues involved.
So to clarify - when you advise that a condition should be placed on a development proposal and a planner acts on this, is this where your job stops?? Because if it is then you can go on to say that it's nothing to do with you.....but it obviously does not stop there. Once your condition is accepted it is for you to produce a brief (scope of works) describing the work required and to monitor the stages of work.....if this is not done as a means of enforcing the appropriate implementation of projects than why on earth is it done at all?? Sure, only planners have legal enforcement powers, but curators can give contractors a hard time on site and demand that things are done as they want. As a matter of fact, many do actually do this very effectively without having to invoke legal powers. The problem is that most do not have the time to dedicate to doing this.
Also, I do not recall implying that the IFA has no role in this, and as a paying member I recognise the role they do play in providing benchmarks.
So to conclude:
1. I never implied that curators should be doing more than they are, but I did say that more enforcement powers and better resources would allow them to, and....
2. as there are curators monitoring all commercial work (usually), an increase in powers and/or better integration with planning departments would have the biggest impact on the market.
3. The reason I pick out curators is because they are the only agents who monitor archaeological work on a project by project basis, which is why their actions have the broadest and most immediate impact.
4. We are all operating in a free market which is regulated by sometimes indirect mechanisms; I am not saying that curators consciously regulate the market, I am saying that by monitoring work and ensuring quality on a project by project basis curators are collectively (through this function) acting as regulators whether they think they are or not.
I have tried to explain how curatorial decisions and pricing levels are connected without being too specific with circumstances, so if this is still hard to see then I am sorry. Therefore all I can say is that they are definitely connected and if you think I am wrong or exaggerating, well.....I can live with that.
don't panic!