+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: DBA, method statement, project design (/showthread.php?tid=370)
DBA, method statement, project design - Unitof1 - 4th January 2007
âmonitoring does not cost, as we are paid to do it by our councilâ
pity.. as could there be a business for Troll around the premise that it does cost
£75 to register a potential monitoring event with recognised impartial forum such as BAJR (not IFA as they dont do monitoring)
£180 day rate to undertake monitoring
40p a mile to and from monitoring site
£180 day rate to write up and submit monitoring report to a forum vote
£200 Sundries*
All monies guaranteed by agreement in spec as outlined in IFA standards
PS. for monitoring the curators the registration fee could be increased to £200 as it is paid by the council
*at an average of two monitoring jobs a week attempt to clip new G7 pay band
I have come across the rumours too Barnsley and a murky audit puddle it is. Do the curators leave receipts?
DBA, method statement, project design - troll - 4th January 2007
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
DBA, method statement, project design - 1man1desk - 4th January 2007
Posted by Unit of 1:
Quote:quote:The IFA standards clearly direct that everyone but the IFA does monitoring. I find it hard to believe that there is any law about archaeological monitoring.I don't think there is any specific law - just general planning law. The specifics, such as they are, exist in the form of planning policy guidance, rather than actual law.
The IFA can only refer to other people's established monitoring duties; they don't have the capacity to do any monitoring themselves. After all, they only have 9 or 10 staff, all busy and not all full-time.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
DBA, method statement, project design - Unitof1 - 4th January 2007
As far as I can see PeepeeG does not mention monitoring particularly by curatorial staff.
In the appendix- Key bodies it mentions IFA with a âthere is a disciplinary procedure for investigating and dealing with allegations of improper conductâ
me thinks IFA made it up by themselves
DBA, method statement, project design - drpeterwardle - 4th January 2007
I seem to work in a different system.
It is a "local planning authourity" who issue planning permission except those determined on appeal. The LPA decisions are made by elected members but these decisions can be delegated to an officer.
These decisions are legally enforceable in the criminal courts normally in the magistrate court. Fines for breaches of the TCPA carrying a fine of upto 20k - the level of the fine being determined by the financial gain.
The LPA employ officers who are "advisors" in a sense to the LPA to advise on/determine if a planning application conforms to the development plan policy.
If a planning application does conform to the policy and there are not objections then the application will be dealt with by delegated powers for example.
If the officers recommend approval and the elected members refuse the application there is a good chance the decision will be reversed on appeal.
The status of archaeologist who comment on planning applications varies but nevertheless they have "powers". If a planning condition is imposed the LPA can take enforcement action which in turn can be instigated by an archaeological officer or a complaint from a member of the general public.
So thus if there is a reasonable neccesary and practical requirement for archaeological work to be undertaken then there is by definition a mechanism for ensuring that the work conforms to what is required. What more is needed other than the LPA to do their job?
I for one see no reason therefore for a change in the system and I would be against any move to take power from where it belongs - the elected members.
I cannot see how a professional body like the IFA could have a role in the monitoring of a project in its own right. They have no pays of entry or right to go on a piece of land.
Charges for monitoring visits and/or pre-application advice have been around for many years. Charges for using SMRs are universal. I note that somebody applying for planning permission pays a fee (tax) in any event.
Peter Wardle
DBA, method statement, project design - BAJR Host - 4th January 2007
Right on Peter...
We indeed charge 50 quid an hour for gathering info for commercial use. (free to the good ol' public!) And even when the SMR goes online... It should be remembered that the advice about the SMR comes from a person who knows it like the back of their hand... (which is also why the PAST map sytem in Scotland has a big note saying DO NOT USE FOR PLANNING WORK!!)
If we were to get a project where monitoring was over and above a normal rate (say one visit when needed) then yes we would charge... even more so if we were asked to comment/help with advice.
It is interesting how much time it can take me to fully digest and comment on a report...
If anyone is in a position to 'see' and monitor... then it is the ALGAO members.
Perhaps thats where we should be looking ... 'We' ensure the IFA standards are upheld.... and the IFA 'just' produce standards.. and don't get involved in monitoring, as with the best will.. (even as it stands with 50 odd Units) inspections only happen 2-3 years apart.. and with months of preperation time beforehand. (like the queen... you can imagine the inspection team thinks that everywhere smells of new paint
)"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
DBA, method statement, project design - Unitof1 - 5th January 2007
So a baboon of a field archaeologist insults the curator by using the one and only context sheet generated in a two week watching brief as toilet paper. Said curator cries to the elected members who insist that the full power of magisterial court, under TCPA, is brought against..................
......the Developer.
The Developers defence.
The baboon and curator had been in collusion in the construction of the specification which had given the impression to the defendant that the baboon in the eyes(delegated) of the elected members was an archaeologist fit and proper for the employment. What more could the defendant do? Was it not also outlined in the IFA codes of conduct that the curator should have monitored the toilet habits of the baboon at all times?
(not sure about the baboons thoughts on having to pay £50 for information that had been put into the SMR by fellow baboons- young and antiquarian)
DBA, method statement, project design - BAJR Host - 5th January 2007
Thing in... it takes more than a baboon to fully understand not only the WHOLE smr... but the underlying reasoning behind any requirements for work.... more info than any one baboon could hold. The great monkey not only holds the info... but holds all the info.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
DBA, method statement, project design - Unitof1 - 5th January 2007
âbut the underlying reasoning behind any requirements for workâ
Then maybe the great public funded monkeys have to do the âworkâ themselves and leave us commercial independent baboons alone to make our money from our craft elsewhere as we are incapable of seeing the light of the one true faith (power of place). http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1447
All these threats of legislation and monitoring can only really suggest to the general public that the natural state of an archaeologist is as a charlatan down to the point of charging the client to come and monitor the archaeologist that the curator had already approved in the spec-bloody odd
isint that the rub. I think that I could have been parachuted onto Trolls dbas/methodless statements and project designsless site and so long as I had a contract which I had negotiated. Now you want to call me a charlatan because I did not understand the great public funded monkeys underlying reasoning. Maybe competitive tenderising is pointing out that these dbas/method/designs exercises are mostly pointless (probably result from the liberal use of the post determination negative condition) attempts to get out of undertaking an evaluation.
The overriding underlying reason is that development is forcing the archaeologists to a place (power of place) in case there is anything of interest and having to come up with a lot of spurious justification in place of a good old predetermination evaluation
And back to
âI for one see no reason therefore for a change in the system and I would be against any move to take power from where it belongs - the elected members.
I cannot see how a professional body like the IFA could have a role in the monitoring of a project in its own right. They have no pays of entry or right to go on a piece of land.â
Well
I suggest that the IFA is the body empowered and that it should take out all the monitoring references in its standards that trust monitoring onto everyone else but themselves. (I would also like to see them get rid of the watching brief standard as an archaeological method but I donât think that you are ready for that) (I also find the artefact discard statements in the standards rather circular in the circumstance where there has been no prior evaluation)
I suggest that the IFA tells any curator who thinks that they should monitor the standards to get on their bike and leave it to us archaeologists to decide down the pub whos rubbish before getting up the next day to agree to everything the next curator thinks is needed and come up with a competitive bid based upon the standard that the rubbish baboon one got away with.
"Someone must be trusted. Let it be the judges." Lord Denning
DBA, method statement, project design - beamo - 5th January 2007
'Charges for monitoring visits and/or pre-application advice have been around for many years.'
I reckon that I have been involved in setting up projects in at least 26 English counties and most of Wales over that last 15 years and have never once been charged for monitoring visits or pre-application advice, only for access to/provision of SMR data. In this case the charge is for the SMR officer's time , not for the actual data.
A few years ago Wilts CC sent out letters suggesting a charge of £50 per monitoring visit, but there was a bit of an outcry and I am not aware of any invoices ever being sent out. One of the complaints was that this was an indirect fee ultimately paid for by the developer (as the contractor would have to pass it on, with interest), and the developer had already paid a fixed fee to register the application.
At the end of 2006 Kent CC archaeologists held a meeting with contractors/curators and I believe that charging was one of the issues discussed, but as I was not there I cannot comment on the substance of the matter.
Beamo