Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract?

[BAJR Host]

Sounds like a plan.... and will be enforced

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[drpeterwardle]

Sorry to be pedantic

"Planning supervisor" is defined in the contract in section 13.1.

(OK it defines it as defined in the CDM regs)....

If there are some of us who want to actually discuss how the contract works (and have experience of it) and how it could be improved perhaps we could discuss these points.

I dont like the fact that the definition of archaeological remains has been changed from the 1979 act - amy trace or sign of the thing in question. While the ICE definition has a point I think some compatability is needed with the primary archaeological leglislation.

With the new Act round the corner perhaps this is the time for a re-definition.

Dr Peter Wardle

[Unitof1]

I suppose I will make this my last rant on this thread so don’t read it if you are feed up with all my others

Sorry doctor/1man could I not argue that from your point that you think that consultants should be involved in all field projects that I should be aware of this contract and that it does affect me.

I an sorry that, based purely on the principle that the archaeologist should secure the permission of the landowner as the owner of the archaeology, I do feel that the confusion between principle contractors planning supervisors and the device of the consultant replacing the principle contractor that has replace the employer who is not necessarily the landowner is a pigs ear particularly if you were to take the position of a digger working on one of these schemes.

Are there no views about CIS for people working under the ice contract.

quote: A big strip map sample exercise with several machines and loads of dumpers I would suggest is clearly an engineering operation and indeed is the sort of activity that the CDM regulations are designed to cover.

I think that the doctor- has tried the pre-determination is the same as post-determination because there are machines involved and it’s a health and safety issue therefore its construction, is a bit like 1mans

quote: you have to pay for archaeological work under conditions of the planning permission

You are saying that Any and All archaeologists, Amateurs, Academics are in fact construction workers and have to work under all their tax schemes and regulations.

Beamo

quote: Thus if you are carrying out a watching brief on a construction site which is subject to CDM, then you are subject to CDM and would become a 'Contractor' as defined by the CDM Regs, and would have to carry out the duries of a 'Contractor' as defined by the Regs.

quote: If you are carrying out an excavation on a construction site which is subject to CDM then you are subject to CDM and would become a 'Contractor' as defined by the Regs.

How about the concept that a watching brief (and should only be done after an evaluation is inconclusive) is obviously of a construction site but an evaluation trench or an excavation area is an archaeological site on which construction cannot occur until the archaeological activity has ceased.

Maybe ice should be relegated to watching briefs.

From a health and safety point of view I want full control and responsibility. Just the slightest chance that some planning supervisor or archaeological consultant may not understand my operations. I think its an irresponsible act for an archaeologist to leave to others. It seems to me that this so called planning supervisor is presumably the carrier of the insurance. I suggest that the archaeologist should be fully insured and if you are you then don’t need the planning thinggy. Maybe what I most don’t like about the ice contract is its obligation of heath and safety to some involuted construction model. Archaeologists don’t need it, the ifa don’t need consultants, they should shred this contract and start with a simple contract of archaeologist employs another archaeologist .

[the invisible man]

A Planning Supervisor (as used to be called) does not have responsibility for Health and Safety and essentially has no powers to control anything: this is a common misconception. He is responsible for ensuring that the H&S File and Plan are completed. Basically he nags everyone else at meetings to complete the paperwork. He is not an H&S inspector of any sort.

The Main Contracor (in a construction sense) is responsible for H&S, which steps down through his subcontractors as applicable.

[1man1desk]

Posted by Unit of 1:

quote:I do feel that the confusion between principle contractors planning supervisors and the device of the consultant replacing the principle contractor that has replace the employer who is not necessarily the landowner is a pigs ear particularly if you were to take the position of a digger working on one of these schemes.

That would indeed be a pigs ear, if any of it was true. However, none of it is true, and I think that I and others have made it clear that it isnt true. All it shows is a complete lack of understanding of the documents you have read.

The rest of your post just shows an inability to distinguish between the requirements of the ICE Contract and CDM, which are two different things.

quote:they should shred this contract and start with a simple contract of archaeologist employs another archaeologist

That is an attractively simple model, but in this ideal world, who actually pays for the work? Who is the first archaeologist, and where do they get their money from?

Our system, for which the Contract is designed, is very simple in principle. Developers destroy archaeological sites; in order to mitigate the damage, they are obliged to employ an archaeological contractor to excavate the site first. If they wish to do so, the developer and the contractor can define and manage their relationship using the ICE Contract. The wording of the Contract and its guidance notes makes reference to other parties that have an interest (e.g. the Curator), and to certain areas of law that both parties have to comply with in designing and implementing the work (e.g. CDM, where it applies). Is that really so hard to understand?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Unitof1]

1man surely Developers, your masters, do not destroy archaeology, they create. Its landowners that destroy archaeology, its theirs to destroy. If you are an archaeologist you need their permission.

[1man1desk]

No, developers destroy. Developers are often landowners too, of course.

As for developers being my 'masters' - tell me, who pays for the work you do? Might it be people who want to build things (i.e. developers, whether or not they own the land) and have found that there is some archaeology in the way?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Unitof1]

Every single one of my "clients" (not who I work fors clients employers employer (at best with an undefined contract)) has been a landowner, since I have stopped working for any other archaeological t(may I refer you to the edition of Austin)t. That they have been a landowner, who is undertaking some development that has had forced on them some archaeological consideration by some undeveloped pensioned zygote is what I have been there to grease with my extremely dear knowledge of the trowel. Not a single one has said, my builder has to employer you according my consultant. Currently the local mounty is accusing me of not archiving 90 sites. The landowners seem happy, whats the problem?

[BAJR Host]

by some undeveloped pensioned zygote

Currently the local mounty is accusing me of not archiving 90 sites

A) slipping into abusive terms.. it is you opinion...
b) it is a requirement for the rest of us... you are not unique (well in some ways you are) but we all have to archive.. and I have just been sorting out some back projects - before I go away. I take the requirements seriously, as do others... don't carp about not carrying out what you are expected to do... you are not fulfilling your clients/landowners conditions ... so you are letting them down. And put it this way ... if there was a person with 90 non-archived sites, I would be very very wary. I take it we can find your reports at least? Or is that a pension dodge for your old age?

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[Unitof1]

Well spotted hosty. Not sure about this, we might need a different thread.

First off, there is the ifas 10 years or is it five that an archaeologist may have some immediate ascendancy over a site(and copyright of 70 years), how come some interpretation out of peepg16 has made up a load of tosh of 2 months that I have stretched(and all of the big boys in my area) to 6 years(and for them more). Was there some pre-(who with)algao (not an RAO) agreement that "archaeologists" had agreed to. Recently I talked to an archaeologist (who was in charge and had a trowel in her hand, but that it was not published really was no concern of mine) who had dug an unpublished (£1 million + a half)EH site from 20 years ago. She was very informative, I had gone in for the politics but she almost immediately talked about a ditch. My day was filled with joy, thank you fellow archaeologist.

I am in no way wary

quotevery, very)

I have the landowners consent, where as one man is worried about every shadow, most of which have been created in justification of the arrangements of their contracts. As for the curators saying look I can get my trained archaehaelosits to s(may I refer you to the edition of Austin)t within 2 months

It begs -What does the landowners concent mean......to me it is happyness, happyness.....