15th April 2007, 11:59 PM
I do not think we are talking at cross purposes at all. A bit above I listed the points where curators can directly influence standards - for which we seem to agree. My point is that it tends to be with the same organisations that one has the same arguments e.g. trying not to dig adequate samples of linear features, trying to reduce recording detail etc. You go on site and argue these points out beating the archaeologists around the head with their WSI etc and it may well be the case that they have to spend longer on site and delay the development timetable. Obviously, depending upon the unit's agreement with their client, this may cost the unit more or increase their bill.
If one is able to get the planning authority to bring in the enforcement team this sends a direct message to the developer about their choice of archaeologist and will put the fear of god in them. If their condition may not be discharged then sales or use of the property, or their development programme may be delayed and this will directly cost the developer money. Enforcement action can also be quoted to anyone choosing to use that unit. This may also put the unit directly at risk of having their bills paid.
In my view this is a more significant influence on standards than having the same argument with the same people on site concerning site practice, not to say that this is not important. RAO registration means that I can call up the IFA, copy letters to them etc so bad practice is kept on file and influence the continued registration of the organisation. If they are removed, or unsuccessfully apply, I can quote this to any developer who chooses to use them.
If one is able to get the planning authority to bring in the enforcement team this sends a direct message to the developer about their choice of archaeologist and will put the fear of god in them. If their condition may not be discharged then sales or use of the property, or their development programme may be delayed and this will directly cost the developer money. Enforcement action can also be quoted to anyone choosing to use that unit. This may also put the unit directly at risk of having their bills paid.
In my view this is a more significant influence on standards than having the same argument with the same people on site concerning site practice, not to say that this is not important. RAO registration means that I can call up the IFA, copy letters to them etc so bad practice is kept on file and influence the continued registration of the organisation. If they are removed, or unsuccessfully apply, I can quote this to any developer who chooses to use them.