Memorandum submitted by the Surrey Archaeological
Society
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Surrey Archaeological Society is
a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity. It was
established in 1854, essentially to promote the study of archaeology
within the historic county of Surrey and therefore covers all
matters relating to the prehistory and history of the county including
the collection and publication of material and information for
the public benefit.
1.2 The Society welcomes this inquiry by
the Select Committee. Our evidence relates to the historic county
of Surrey which includes the present administrative county.
1.3 The Society's response to the seven
issues identified by the Committee is given below.
2. What the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport should identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage
White Paper
2.1 It is essential that the White Paper
covers all aspects of heritage. It is of concern that the title
of the inquiry apparently fails to recognise the continuing need
to ensure that the Nation's heritage is first identified.
2.2. The Society urges that the following
priorities are included in the White Paper.
1. To ensure protection and management of
the historic environment, the maintenance of Historic Environment
Records (currently the Sites and Monuments Records) is made statutory
as a matter of urgency and be widely accessible, especially to
those responsible for planning and development.
2. Adequate resources are provided and maintained
to enable the archaeological and historic environment to continue
to be identified in both urban and rural landscapes.
3. Specialist advice is available for those
responsible for Local Development Frameworks, and all planning
and development matters. In the part of historic Surrey which
is now within the Greater London Area, this advice is available
from English Heritage, via the Greater London Archaeology Advisory
Service. Within the administrative county this advice used to
be available from the Heritage and Countryside divisions of Surrey
County Council. Current proposals before the Council suggest that
only services which are statutory will be available in future.
4. Adequate and appropriate storage facilities
for archaeological archive is essential. While in Greater London,
the problem has been addressed by the establishment of the London
Archaeological Archive Research Centre, the situation in administrative
Surrey is dire. There is no County Museum or Museum Store: local
museum stores are full and Guildford Museum, which until recently
accepted material from anywhere in the County, will now only accept
material from within the Borough (see Archaeology in Surrey
Museums, Hedley Swain. Museum of London Archaeology Service,
September 1995).
3. The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English
Heritage and other relevant organisations in representing heritage
interests inside and outside Government
3.1 In so far as Heritage, at least, is
concerned DCMS does not appear to carry sufficient weight, which
is reflected in the failure to amend the VAT rules to encourage
proper maintenance of the nation's heritage.
3.2 Heritage matters appear to be largely
delegated to English Heritage, which though having the necessary
level of expertise, does not have a voice in Government; neither
is it adequately resourced. This further diminishes DCMS ability
to effectively represent heritage within and outside Government.
4. The balance between heritage and development
needs in planning policy
4.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act, effective 2004, requires all local planning authorities are
to have in place by Spring 2007 Local Development Frameworks (LDFs),
replacing Unitary Development Plans and Structure Plans.
4.2 In Greater London, the LDFs have to
be in conformity with the London Mayor's Spatial Strategy, known
as the London Plan, which we understand is about to be revised.
It is of concern that hitherto, heritage has not featured significantly
in previous documents, and thus a balance between the heritage
and development needs are unlikely to be met or even addressed.
4.3 In administrative Surrey, the Structure
Plans were produced by the County Council informed by the professional
expertise available within the Heritage division. The District
and Borough Councils now in the process of preparing the LDFs
do not have the resources or expertise individually to inform
the frameworks on heritage matters, and the expertise available
at County level is already seriously diminished (see 2.2.3).
4.3 It is crucial that the forthcoming revisions
to PPG 15 and 16 build upon, rather than reduce, the statutory
protection now afforded in all planning decisions.
4.4 In any revision there is a need to ensure
that adequate funding is provided to ensure that:
(i) adequate briefs, upon which the competitive
tendering is made, are prepared prior to planning permission being
granted;
(ii) the process is monitored and standards
maintained;
(iii) the conditions are fulfilled;
(iv) publication is included within the brief;
and
(v) someone is accountable for specific performance,
and that provision is made for effective enforcement of the conditions.
In Greater London, these matters are the responsibility
of GLAAS which is under-resourced for the tasks imposed upon it.
In administrative Surrey, and possibly elsewhere, it is unclear
whether sufficient resources will be made available to effectively
fulfil the objectives of PPG 15 and 16 and its successor.
5. Access to Heritage and the position of
heritage as a cultural asset in the community
5.1 The Society, as an amateur Society,
has over the course of its history been involved in the practice
of archaeology and our members cover a wide range of interests
from pure "dirt" archaeology, landscape surveys, industrial
and social history, to documentary research—and the dissemination
of that research by means of publications, lectures, seminars
and workshops. We also aim to involve local communities in our
work and research.
5.2 Since the introduction of PPG 15 and
16, and the advent of intervention by archaeological contractors,
there has been less opportunity for amateurs to become involved
in archaeological excavation at any stage, although interest,
as a result of programmes on TV has increased. At the same time,
the results of the interventions as a result of PPG 16, are often
less readily available to the wider public, if at all.
Many of the interventions are in town centres
or villages, where occupants and residents may be rehoused or
inconvenienced. If communities are to retain their sense of community,
it is in our view important that they should be made aware of
the outcome and the value of the cultural asset maximised.
Of equal significance is the difficulty of access
to the information gained for scholars, and subsequent impact
on research.
We believe all these issues should be better
addressed.
6. Funding, with particular reference to the
adequacy of the budget for English Heritage and for museums and
galleries, the impact of the London 2012 Olympics on Lottery funding
for heritage projects, and forthcoming decisions on the sharing
of funds from Lottery sources between good causes
6.1 The Society has concerns about the reduction
in resources and spending power of English Heritage, which must
necessarily manifest itself in its ability to fund projects and
inhibit new ventures.
6.2 The value of the Heritage Lottery Fund
in the preservation and restoration of historic buildings has
been immense. Equally important and valuable is the contribution
to local communities made possible by the local heritage initiative
funding. Involvement by local communities in these initiatives
has strengthened local identity and helped to achieve the aims
outlined in the EH publication Pride of Place.
6.3 Most, if not all, local museums and
galleries have been dependent upon funding from the Lottery to
renew and revitalise their premises and displays. Many are finding
that funding from local authorities is steadily reducing and rely
upon volunteers to support hard-pressed and under-resourced staff.
6.4 Any reduction of funds made available
for these local initiatives would be seriously prejudicial and
the impact of the London 2012 Olympics is of considerable concern.
Even before the decision was announced, the Society was informed
that a lottery bid for a five-year project, specifically aimed
at involving and training local communities in understanding their
landscape, would not be favourably considered as funding "pot"
was likely to be reduced. We were advised to limit the project
to three years. The outcome is currently unknown.
6.5 While the 2012 Olympics should provide
an opportunity to show the world the wealth and variety of London's
heritage and it is appropriate that the Lottery Fund should support
the London Olympics, the opportunities for the rest of the country
should not be ignored.
It is the heritage of the whole nation which
draws tourists to Great Britain now and well beyond 2012, and
it needs constant support.
7. What roles and responsibilities should
be for English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, local authorities,
museums and galleries, charitable and other non-Governmental organisations
in maintaining the nation's heritage
7.1 With reference to Greater London, the
only borough within the historic county of Surrey with a qualified
archaeologist is Southwark. The rest rely on the advice from Greater
London Archaeology Advisory Service (GLAAS). However if GLAAS
is to develop Public Archaeology and develop its Strategic Policy
and Guidance, as well as advising the remaining London Boroughs
on all planning matters, then adequate funding needs to be guaranteed.
7.2 With reference to administrative Surrey,
none of the Districts or Boroughs have qualified archaeologists
able to advise them either on the Local Development Frameworks
or Planning applications. As indicated elsewhere the support previously
available from County is apparently to be seriously diminished.
7.3 In the Society's view, provision should
be made to ensure that all districts and boroughs in the country
have access to specialist advice on all archaeological and environmental
matters relating to the planning and development of areas under
their control.
7.4 The Society has within its membership
considerable expertise and specialist knowledge and has worked
in partnership with the County Council and local authorities in
sharing knowledge and undertaking initiatives. The Society has
benefited in the past from Heritage Lottery funding and believes
it should be maintained at least to its present level.
8. Whether there is an adequate supply of
professionals with conservation skills; the priority placed by
planning authorities on conservation; and means of making conservation
expertise more accessible to planning officers, councillors and
the general public
8.1 Every local authority needs professional
advice or access to it. However, resources, both human and financial
are, for the most part, lacking. Links with local groups and societies
and the voluntary sector could assist.
8.2 The Society believes there is a general
lack of understanding and appreciation of the value of heritage
by councillors and Members of Parliament. The steady reduction
in resources available for heritage can only exacerbate the situation.
17 February 2006
| 
