5th April 2011, 09:46 PM
I agree with Vulpes on this. If a Council no longer has access to curatorial advice, it's unlikely that much archaeological work will get done in that area. I don't see Councils imposing a blanket requirement for every application to be accompanied by a desk-based assessment or a report outlining the results of an evaluation, and even if they did, there'd be nobody available to tell the planner whether these reports were adequate, or whether further work was required. I know that Unit of 1 would probably consider that the planner should accept his / her recommendation, a sort of 'Trust Me, I'm An Archaeologist' approach, but in practise this isn't realistic. In addition to attaching the conditions that are the prompt for most commercial fieldwork, under the current system curators also act to provide an independent assessment to the planner to ensure that fieldwork has been undertaken to an appropriate standard and level, while also providing a degree of insurance to developers that contractors aren't trying to over-charge them by undertaking work that's not necessary to address the archaeological issues raised by the development proposal.
While philosophically I think that regulatory functions such as this should be provided by not-for-profit public bodies rather than commercial concerns, I think it would always be preferable for a Council to have some form of curatorial advice, even if this has to be bought in, than to have no access to such a service, as this would at least ensure that some archaeological work would take place. I do think, however, that bodies providing curatorial advice should not also undertake commercial fieldwork or consultancy. This applies equally to Council units, Trusts and commercial firms. I've never understood how it's possible to avoid a clear conflict of interest where one body undertakes both roles. Similarly, if a commercial consultancy is appointed to provide curatorial advice to a Council, surely this will give them a clear commercial advantage over their competitors, in that they'll be in a position to see all their documentation, working practises and costs, and will be in prime position to undercut them when tendering for work.
While philosophically I think that regulatory functions such as this should be provided by not-for-profit public bodies rather than commercial concerns, I think it would always be preferable for a Council to have some form of curatorial advice, even if this has to be bought in, than to have no access to such a service, as this would at least ensure that some archaeological work would take place. I do think, however, that bodies providing curatorial advice should not also undertake commercial fieldwork or consultancy. This applies equally to Council units, Trusts and commercial firms. I've never understood how it's possible to avoid a clear conflict of interest where one body undertakes both roles. Similarly, if a commercial consultancy is appointed to provide curatorial advice to a Council, surely this will give them a clear commercial advantage over their competitors, in that they'll be in a position to see all their documentation, working practises and costs, and will be in prime position to undercut them when tendering for work.