The value of a watching brief

[Post-Med Potterer]

What is the value of a watching brief? To the developer it is often an open-ended and potentially costly expense; to the archaeologist it frequently provides a frustrating glimpse of something to which more time should be given. Is there another way?

Normally a watching brief is adopted following earlier forms of evaluation, such as a desk-based assessment and trial trenching. If the trial trenching has not found anything then fair enough (providing the trenches were properly located in the first place). However, I have known watching briefs to be required as the [u]only</u> means of recovering archaeological information, and substantial archaeological features have been poorly recorded.

Would a larger-scale fixed-price excavation at an earlier stage prove a better response? It would enable archaeological features to be properly defined and recorded, and would also provide the developer with a fixed cost.

Possibly controversial - and I am not leaning towards any particular viewpoint - I am just curious to see what people think...

[drpeterwardle]

Not controversial at all.

A watching brief where the remains are not adequately excavated or recorded suits no one. It is always better to evaluate first or excavate rather have a watching brief. Funnily enough most contractors will say watching briefs are fine - the archaeologists turn up do their thing and don't hold us up. In a sense this is the point I am making, if archaeologists so rarely hold up a development because nothing is found, what is the point of them? A watching brief as a cheap way of excavating something is really just that - an inadequate excavation.

Peter

[destroyer]

Surely a WB is the result of a sensible compromise between the developer and the archaeology. A site may have a low potential for archaeology which is deemed to be of enough interest to have a look but is economically unfeasible to excavate. So we either cancel the development or cut the work down to a WB and everybody is reasonably happy.

I agree that a WB normally finds very little, are often badly recorded and generally can be seen as an inadequate excavation but there is no reason for this if done properly.
It does rely on good communication with the developers. I'm fed up with driving 20 miles to see a trench being filled with the last drops from the cement lorry.

On a lighter note they do et me out of the office, an hours drive listening to the cricket, quick chat with a machine driver and a wander around the site. Jobs a good un.

[charlie farnsbarnes]

I think that there are two main problems with asking for a watching brief. The first is that many archaeologists go out with the expectation of finding nothing, and consequently may not be as observant as they could be. The second is that, if something does turn up, the archaeologist is often not willing to hold up the construction schedule in order to deal with it properly. Reading that back, it sounds very critical of contracting archaeologists, and I don't mean it to be. It's just that I think that carrying out a watching brief needs an archaeologist that is confident enough in their role in the planning process to halt a site in the face of pressure from the developer.

[drpeterwardle]

Lets get back to basics. A planning condition can only be imposed if without the planning application would other wise be refused. Therefore such a condition should not be applied to a development if there is not clear evidence that archaeological remains are present.

PPG 16 requires archaeological remains to preserved by situ or preserved by record.

An archaeologist on site who is too much of a wimp to stop the development while whatever has been found is excavated should not be there. The system is clear cut in this circumstance - the development stops. If the developer does not then they are in breach of their planning permission etc etc. If found guilty this carries a fine of upto 20k if you plead guilty.

If stuff is present that needs excavating - either it need excavating or it doesn't - all we are discussing is when it will be discovered. In terms of the PPG16 system the extent of the excavation should be the same if stuff is found in a watching brief or not. The cost of the excavation will be the same whenever the remains are found what will be different are the other costs to the developer.

If archaeology has made the development uneconomic it is simply tough on the developer.

In PPG 16 a watching brief is a means of ensuring that the developers do what they are suppossed to and thus prevent damage to important monuments.

I agree watching briefs are nice little earners for archaeologist though - they are always done on a day rate. I always used to enjoy them when I was a proper archaeologist - a nice drive in countryside take a few photographs stop somewhere nice for lunch.

Peter

[charlie farnsbarnes]

I agree with much of what Dr Wardle says above. A watching brief should only be performed by an archaeologist who is confident enough to stop development, but the point is that this isn't always the case. In the area where I work, inexperienced archaeologists are often sent out to undertake WBs, are often either unwilling or unable to record sites properly. I don't blame the on-site archaeologist as much as I blame the unit that put him/her in that position. Often it seems to me that units have undertaken the job on the condition that they'll find nothing.

Similarly, I agree that if archaeology makes a development uneconomic, that's just tough. If a development is so marginal that the cost of a watching brief is unsustainable, there's bound to be some other cost that crops up which will push it into debt.

However, I don't agree that planning conditions should only be imposed where there is good evidence that archaeology is present. In the case of greenfield developments, there may be no recorded archaeology, but development may encounter something that was not known beforehand.

[Petethedig]

Most watching briefs are like a trip to the seaside! A bit of traveling followed by a rainy day and a quick dip of the toe into the cold water and off again! Opps, sorry forgot the bag of chips and a cup of tea at lunch time!And sand between your toes in the bath at night.
In other words, not pointless, but rarely gets to the bottom of things!
In my opinion the planning laws need a very large overhaul in favor of saving the hidden treasures of our country.
To start with I'd make it compulsary to have either insurance for all developers to cover any unforseen archaeology that may be found.
Secondly I'd dare to suggest a tariff be made against all new developments on a sliding scale(a type of stamp duty percentage) that would be cheaper to the small development and obviously costing more for the larger one's. Having an archaeologist popping in for a day is about as useful as a 'cat flap' in an elephant house.:)

Evil to him who thinks evil.

[BAJR Host]

[8D] Nice way of summing it it really....

To misquote Edmund Blackadder it is like a pencil without a lead................... POINTLESS

:D

[BAJR Host]

[8D] Nice way of summing it it really....

To misquote Edmund Blackadder it is like a pencil without a lead................... POINTLESS

:D

[Petethedig]

How long before any government whether national or local take a deep breath and jump in with a policy that will actually achive something.
Its the procratination of poloticians that have got us to this point in time. What or how much more must be lost due to the greed of a few at the cost of the many? It takes one brave man or woman to stand up and say do you know what's being lost and can never be recovered again!
I'm a metal detectorist with a passion for human history especially our own. It grates me so much that I have seen sites destroyed because of greed. Its got to start at the planning stage and with some lateral as well as radical thinking going into the efforts to bridge a devide between archaeologist and developers(no matter how small they may be!).
If you guys could have your way what would your choices be to help this situation along? As a Church Minister I often start with answers and then go backwards to make them workable!

Evil to him who thinks evil.

[BAJR Host]

I am afraid that this already happens, with archaeology enshrined in the planning process (see NPPG16) Of course we can only protect the sites we know about or can assume may be in that area based upon other evidence. We have to act within the law though... so asking for 5% evaluations in a field that has been a field since 1620 is not going to be approved unless we can provide real evidence why it should be... the process is getting better as detectoriss come forward and tell us (in teh council) about these unknown sites.

We do also have provision for 'unexpected archaeology' but we all know of developers that find and hide sites - but we can't act if we ain't told... so if you se a site being destroyed... tell some one... best is the County Archaeologist (a full list is available on BAJR Who's Who...

Thanks for that PetetheDig... nice to see you here..

[troll]

The quality of a watching brief depends largely on the following;
1.the quality of the DBA/method statement and project design.
2.a willingness on the part of curators to expand research frameworks and step outside of simply trusting in the SMR
3.competent consultants/fieldworkers and, most importantly,
4. a Curator with teeth.

"value" is rather a subjective ,measurement particularly when standards vary nationwide and are not effectively policed by the grown-ups.:)

[BAJR Host]

Fancy writing something for the Digger troll??

Something alobg these lines??

go on .... there is a new one coming up in Feb...

thedigger@email.com

[Steven]

As one of those (often maligned) curators I am very interested to see that the value of investigation is an active debate. I find that watching briefs are extremely useful when initiating investigation in areas with potential but little actual evidence produced from excavations or other interventions. For example watching briefs on single houses (even extensions) within villages which are referenced in Domesday but have never had any actual archaeological investigation. If a watching brief turns up physical evidence then a later planning application in a nearby plot can be evaluated as the evidence exists to support this requirement. The trick is to balance the scale of development against the significance of potential remains. If no evidence exists upon which to argue for an evaluation you can find yourself on the losing side in an appeal!

Steven

[deepdigger]

As soon as you put a financial value on something, like a sliding scale type affair the bean counters will factor it in and decide whether they would be better off paying the fine or digging the archaeology. do you honestly think this is the way forward?

deep

[troll]

Had to undertake watching briefs over a 20 hectare regeneration site. Consultants had agreed that the developer would carry out stripping in one area at a time. Over a year later, I was still running from one phase to the next as the developer dug where and when he pleased-usually simultaneously. The consultants did nothing as they were making a good profit margin, the county mounty told me, and I quote, "stop making things any more complicated than they already are". The value of a watching brief depends upon the professionalism of the consultants, the curators, the field archaeologist and, the planning authorities. Money casts a long shadow over the principles and ethics of what is right for the archaeology.Properly carried out-good things come from them. Carried out in a commercial environment? not so sure...

[mercenary]

Sounds familiar, And what happens when something inevitably turns up? Do you stop running back and forth to dig it, thus abandoning the rest of the WB?

I'm sure watching briefs are often only a salve to the conscience of the curator. Pity the poor archaeologist who has to do those projects. I know far too many archaeologists who throw up their hands in that situation and find absolutely nothing. I hope the Curator takes into account the often ridiculous methodology when limited results come back.

[BAJR Host]

You bet we do.... however in return... it is up to you... the person in teh field to call teh curator and say... "hey... this is interesting.. I think it is worth further investigation...!" then we can help achieve that .. rather than the silent grumble it is more useful to tell us at the time. A watching brief has caveats (you will have time to excavate features... however if it become complex then the mitigation comes into force.) A watching brief is not a means to an end.. it is a risk for teh developer.. as in teh envent of significant archaeology appearing... then the work must stop...

Trust me!!

personally I only ask for WBs when I think that the potential is so low that it is unlikely that anything will appear.. but just want o be sure.

[mercenary]

All well and good, but what is considered "significant" varies depending on where you are working. I once tried to contact the curator when I found what I considered significant archaeology in a WB in a region that shall remain nameless. My boss even supported me. But said curator was unreachable, and the job was finished long before he was finally reached 3 days later. What then? I now don't bother because it has been made clear to me that complex archaeology, that most field archaeologist would consider significant, is not seen that way in the eyes of that curator. My reports make it quite clear the archaeology that has been lost to the development, but not once has the curator come back to me and said "that should perhaps have been stopped". The message is quite clear that he does not consider it significant enough.

I'm sympathetic enough to understand that most curators are overworked, but not being able to reach them means that the WB can never be stopped regardless of findings. Now most of the WB's I do in this region are like this. Negative ones are an extreme rarity. It's not even as if these are sites where nothing is expected. I'm talking about medieval villages or towns near to the church.

The worst part about it is that in most of said curators WB WSI's the archaeologist is not even expected to be present until AFTER trenches are dug, and is only required to view open foundations. To canny developers that's great, they don't even notify us until just before the concrete goes in. How would I stop those jobs?

On a slightly different tack can any curators out there tell me what the value of a watching brief after an evaluation is? I've seen plenty of largely urban evaluations with seemingly good archaeology present only followed up with a watching brief where of course the results are much poorer. Surely I can't justify stopping a watching brief like that, as the curator had all the necessary information from the evaluation phase. In those cases it would take me weeks if not months to dig all the affected features, so I end up digging the first 2 or 3 and recording all the rest in section.

Is it perhaps that the region in which I work is so staggeringly full of archaeology that the rules that apply elsewhere just don't here? The unwritten rule here is the archaeologist works around the developers and does not stop them for anything short of a body or a mosaic.

After reading some of the views on this thread I'm very very confused as to what curators actually expect, and I'm convinced it varies massively region to region. Perhaps you should compare notes.[?]

[deepdigger]

A watching brief is just that a watching brief and is always going to be a compromise. if something does turn up the developer has to understand that there must be time allowed to at least dig and record it.
and yes when you're watching three machines digging it can get kinda hectic.

deep

[troll]

Consultants are not always happy for the watching-briefee to contact curators and highlight archaeology. Don`t forget, if money is an issue or, the consultant desperately wants to be friends with the baby client, you could uncover a new henge with fekkin` windows and it would still be trashed. WBs are only worth doing if research and organisation is first carried out by a professional-not by people whose skewed value systems load the cards before they`re dealt.

[charlie farnsbarnes]

Before you go out to do a WB, you should have a look at the actual conditions that are attached to planning consent. In this area, the condition requires the archaeologist to be present during all ground disturbance works, ie before the trenches are dug, and gives them the power to stop work on the site to excavate features without the need to contact the curator. If complex features are found then there is still the need for negotiation with the client for more extensive mitigation, but otherwise, the on-site archaeologist can be in control of what happens on the site. I think there is an underestimation amoung field archaeologists of the extent of what they can and can't do on site, caused by a misunderstanding of the planning process. WBs are almost always a condition of planning consent, and as such, if the developer fails to impliment them, then they are in technical breach of consent. The archaeologist should make use of terms like 'technical breach' and 'stop notice', and make it clear that they are aware that the WB is a condition of consent, and therefore has to be properly carried out for the condition to be discharged

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary
After reading some of the views on this thread I'm very very confused as to what curators actually expect, and I'm convinced it varies massively region to region. Perhaps you should compare notes.[?]




You are probably right that things vary from region to region, as I've heard this too - with the northern (English) curators having an apparently much harder time justifying works than in the south, where conversely, development pressure is supposed to be greater.

Personally, I hate watching briefs. I only ask for them following evaluation or assessment on areas where I'm fairly sure that there won't be anything of real significance (like Mr. BAJR Hosty), I always make sure there are big provisions within WSIs for contingency works if anything is found, and it is specified that the archaeologists should be on site while the excavations are taking place. I'd almost never ask for one on an un-evaluated site either, although I'm more amenable to strip map & record exercises in this situation - albeit again with contingencies in the WSI. Whatever the situation, it should be clear that at this stage, the development works are under archaeological control - not the other way around - then if I happen to be away most urgent situations are covered.

It's disappointing how many consultants and sometimes units still recommend WB's, when we all know they are largely awful. It may be true that they don't want the site personnel to talk directly to the curator too - I certainly think this has been the case on some sites in my area. Doesn't stop you or your supervisor/manager having the curator's phone no. in your pocket and giving him a call off the record if you want him to see something important. I often call in unannounced at sites (where I've not heard of problems I should add) just because I'm in the area on other visits, or passing by on the way back to the office. Local Society members are good at making a fuss too, so why not make some local contacts and quietly suggest they visit the site if you want to raise issues about stuff getting trashed. This has worked for me in the past. All of us working together to make sure archaeology is treated properly is the key.

[mercenary]

Very interesting.

I appreciate the advice, and certainly agree about working together! I suspect that a bit of a wholesale culture change is needed up here with regard to watching briefs by all parties!

[Silent Bob]

I have spent time on at least 100 watching briefs (naturally almost all by myself)and god how I hate them. Its all very well to have to be present during all groundworks but try doing that for at least a week on a site with bugger all on it. After a while you are able to arrive on site and rapidly get an idea of whether or not you are likely to find anything. This doesn't mean that I don't look but recently I have spent much time standing around and wondering what I, a supposedly trained archaeologist, am doing wasting my life on sites like this. It often seems that you are being paid to go to a site where it has already been decided that there isn't much chance of finding anything. Woo Hoo, just why I decided to be an archaeolgist.

[BAJR Host]

I feel A new Poll coming on... has anyone actually found anything on a watching brief??


Another day another WSI…

[mercenary]

I've found much better archaeology on most of my watching briefs than on many excavations!!! If you don't find ANYTHING you're not looking!

[troll]

Found plenty on wbs-if I found nothing, I`d record it too.:D

[achingknees]

troll, mercenary...ditto me. some of me best stuff. knowing the game of battleships aka archaeological evaluation, there's always a good chance of hitting something. of course the watching brief beast has a wide extended family, and some are nicer than others. the best ones for me are big open areas (eg quarries) or transects (eg pipelines).

it's good if you can get on with the workmen, machine guy etc - they will often be extra eyes. but you also have to have some teeth to get respect.

[mercenary]

Ooh, I don't like big open area WB's at all. No chance to clean more than a tiny percentage, and therefore little chance of finding anything except the most obvious ditches. Depends on the natural of course. I'm not a fan of bulldozers or dumpers tracking over everything either. Might as well stay home in those situations I reckon.

No, a nice little set of house foundations seems to get the best results for me. Which is probably why they end up as a WB, cuz the curator feels bad imposing an eval on a 1 house development!

[lucy78green]

a phone box and a nice cattle feeder complete with blue plastic tubes...

Lucy

[Kitty]

quote:[i]No, a nice little set of house foundations seems to get the best results for me. Which is probably why they end up as a WB, cuz the curator feels bad imposing an eval on a 1 house development!


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!

[mercenary]

How do you get absolutely certain? Is that not what evals are for? Do you get slated for negative results on Evals you have imposed? Madness!

An eval should be the absolute minimum on site where anything might be encountered. Once you've got evaluation info you can then make a proper decision about conditions attached to a development. A WB won't do it.

Why is it up to you to decide if archaeology is prohibitively expensive on a site and if so, not then allow the development? As I see it PPG16 requires you to see that archaeology is preserved in-situ or by record. Let market forces decide the rest! If the developer wants the development enough he will pay for the archaeological condition. If not, no development, and no problem for you.

It sounds like the reality is that you are in opposition to the planning department, and have to ridiculously justify your every decision that affects them. The same situation applies where I work, and it is the number one reason why archaeology is done badly or not at all.

What you are achieving when you apply a WB to a site where archaeology is likely, is avoiding your responsibility (presumably because you don't want to have a showdown with the planning dept) and passing it to the poor sod on the ground (me)who then has to decide whether to stop a project when the archaeology turns up. Such a stoppage costs far more than a preliminary eval and proper condition.

This situation makes me very very angry.

[Curator Kid]

I'm quite happy to recommend an evaluation on a one-house development. I don't have to do it very often, but in fact, I did this morning, on an undesignated site, based on information from the local society that medieval artefacts have been coming from the area. I'm quite happy to justify it to the planners (but rarely have to in any depth beyond a letter), and the question of whether or not it is going to cost the developers a prohibitive anount of money is not one I'm bothered about. However, I'm quite lucky in that house prices here are so ludicrous that the cost of such an evaluation would be swallowed up in most circumstances by the likely inflation of the house's selling price between the start of the development project and its completion.

It seems like you work in a different part of the country to me Kitty - possibly the north of England...? I've mentioned the apparent differences between the north & south in previous postings. I'd be interested to hear about some of what you have experienced, and the reasons why. I'm wondering if development pressures in the south mean that developers and planners have become accustomed to more stringent archaeological work programmes quicker than in the north, whilst the high selling prices in the south mean that the costs of such programmes are more readily absorbed or passed on the the eventual customer.

Discuss!:)

[mercenary]

quote:I'm quite happy to justify it to the planners (but rarely have to in any depth beyond a letter), and the question of whether or not it is going to cost the developers a prohibitive anount of money is not one I'm bothered about.

That's what I like to hear.

I'm sure you are right about a north/south difference, but I don't think it's related to house prices. My part of the north is almost as expensive as parts of London so your comments about costs being passed on should apply here too.

I too would like to hear a debate on this subject, and I'll even stop ranting long enough to listen.;)

[Curator Kid]

Maybe this subject should be a new thread as this one is about watching briefs. Let's drop it here and continue it elsewhere...:)

[1man1desk]

This debate seems very polarised, and I have something to say about quite a few of the comments made in this thread.

In practice, the value of a WB depends on circumstances. As a consultant working on large development and infrastructure projects, watching briefs are rarely my first choice, and I only recommend them if certain criteria can be met:
EITHER:
- previous investigation has failed to identify any significant archaeology(agreed with curator) that could be targeted by a different form of investigation, but we still think there is a risk that something is there;
OR:
- on extensive development sites, previous investigation has only identified very low-density, low-significance remains spread over a large area;
AND:
- I know that the topsoil strip/excavation method/plant to be used is such that the archaeologist has a good chance of identifying the remains.

If I can't meet these criteria, I look for another solution.

I also think that there is no point in using a WB if you don't put in explicit provisions for development to be suspended to allow investigation if something is found, and I always allow for that investigation to be to the same standard as a formal excavation. I always warn my client that this could happen and explain the potential risk that they carry if there is a WB, and tell them to allow extra time in their programme/extra money in their risk pot. I have no hesitation in stopping the client's development work and I have done so. However, part of my job is also to help the client find ways to manage the process to minimise the effect of a suspension.

On another topic raised in this debate, I never allow the archaeological contractor to go direct to the curator. This is not because I want to supress anything - I will always report any discoveries to the curator myself. It is because the client, who is paying for the work, is entitled to have their own representative involved in any discussions about what to do witht the archaeology that has been found. Some curators are inclined to give instructions to the contractor, which they are not entitled to do, and some contractors will follow those instructions without reference to the client - who would not then be obliged to pay them.

Most references to consultants in this debate assume that we are there to grind down the archaeology in the client's interest. However, most clients that I work with, once they have got a price for the job and a specified standard to which the work is to be done, want to get what they are paying for. Grief with curators is a problem for them and they prefer to avoid it.

In my experience, however, the hardest thing in my job is often trying to get the contractor to do the work to the standard specified. Curators often cannot monitor properly, because they are under-resourced, but we can do it and we do.

1man1desk

[drpeterwardle]

Welcome to 1man1desk another consultant on BAJRbaiting.

I agree with much that he says particularly about contacting curators. The point is that the client has a right to know what is on his land before anybody else. The worst case I know was when a land owner found out that there had been a significant discovery on his land when he read about it in the local newspaper.

This is particularly so if there has been a breach of a planning condition (we all know it happens).

There is the point that a consultant can usually resolve matters faster than a curator can in any event. Indeed there should be contingency arrangements in place in any event. If something crops up trully out of the blue there is a difficult situation all round. As has been mentioned PPG 16 specifically refers to this in para 31.

I would argue that their is too much recommending or advice in archaeology and not enough clear decisions. I never recommend things - that is not my job.

There is one case where watching briefs are neccessary which I am increasingly refeering to as a mooping up watching brief. On many projects I deal with there is no alternative but to be present while small amounts of ground are disturbed even after a set piece excavation. There is alway that bit of ground which could not be excavated for practical reasons or a position of a drainage run changed.

Peter

[Aine]

I've only just found this forum and I'm learning more about watching briefs than I do at Uni! It's the same old story really: get your licence then learn to drive!!
Thanks a million.:)

Gaia

[BAJR Host]

Too true...

The theory is fine... the summer dig...

but the reality of contract digging??


Another day another WSI…

[muddyandcold]

quote:Originally posted by Kitty

&lt;blockquote id="quote"&gt;&lt;font size="1" face="Arial" id="quote"&gt;quote:&lt;hr height="1" noshade id="quote"&gt;[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).

[troll]

1man1desk-That has to be one of the scariest but frank, indictements of the consulting industry I have ever heard.:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[the invisible man]

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.

[Alfie]

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?;)

[the invisible man]

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.

[troll]

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)

[Alfie]

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.:(

[troll]

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):D

[troll]

Noticed the subject of the March Rescue meeting? See BAJR front page....:D:D:D:D:D[:p][:p][:p]

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[the invisible man]

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.

[1man1desk]

Posted by Troll, with quotes from me:
quote: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?


Point 1
Well, I think you are misinterpreting here. I don't deny the curators access to the contractor, or vice versa; what I do is ensure that when they meet I, or one of my staff, is present. That way, I can make sure that the curator does not issue contractual instructions to the contractor, which they are not entitled to do as they are not a party to the contract.

This is as much to protect the contractor as the client. If a contractor does work on the curator's instructions, without having them agreed by the client first, then they are in breach of contract. The client would be entitled to refuse to pay for the work, and could potentially sue them if the work has an adverse effect on the proposed construction method. However, if the consultant is present, the work can be discussed and, if it is reasonable, agreed. The contractor then takes an instruction to do the work from the consultant, and that instruction is contractually valid.

Take note that, in the 13 years I have been doing this, no curator or contractor has ever objected to this approach. In fact, the only person ever to object is Troll.

In practice, in some counties, I often have to persuade curators to come to site, so that sites where I am the consultant often get more curator monitoring than would otherwise be the case.

Another reason to prevent direct, unmoderated contractor/curator contact over a project is to prevent unscrupulous contractor PMs (they do exist) from feathering their nest by building up the need for more work than is justified. I have seen this done so blatantly that the curator himself objected, saying that the extra work recommended by the contractor was not needed.

Point 2
Not sure what you object to in my original comment. What I was saying was that, once a developer has agreed a WSI with the curator and agreed a price for implementing it with a contractor, then they want to ensure that the work is done to the satisfaction of the curator. If the contractor skimps on the work, and in consequence the curator makes a justifiable fuss, that is just time and money down the drain for the developer. So, they try to avoid that situation. Where they negotiate hard is in agreeing the WSI in the first place.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

Tiz not what you actually said sire.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[1man1desk]

I think if you look at my words, as quoted directly by yourself, that is exactly what I said. Developers want to avoid "grief with curators" because it is a problem - i.e. it costs time and money. So, once they have an agreed scope of work and an agreed price, they want the contractor to do the job properly. That is what they are paying for, and that is how they avoid grief with the curators.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished