Memorandum submitted by the Association
for Industrial Archaeology
INTRODUCTION
The Association for Industrial Archaeology was
formed in 1973 to bring together those interested in what was
then a relatively new area of study. Its membership included some
professionally involved with conserving the past, working in museums,
governmental organisations such as the Royal Commissions, or archives,
and some academics, though few whose responsibilities included
the study of industrial archaeology. For many years the archaeology
community took little serious interest in the industrial period,
but this has changed, partly because of the demands on Archaeology
Units created by PPGs 15 and 16. Most of the Association's members
have never had any professional involvement with archaeology or
the industrial heritage: theirs is a voluntary and amateur interest.
Many have brought particular skills, such as draughtsmanship,
and practical knowledge of industry and the workplace. Today the
Association has about 700 individual members, plus some 30 affiliated
societies which are mostly area based industrial archaeology societies,
representing perhaps a further 2,000 people. Communication is
by a quarterly newsletter, IA News, and through an annual study
weekend and the peripatetic annual conference. High standards
of recording, conservation and publication are encouraged by annual
awards. The Association produces an academic publication, Industrial
Archaeology Review, twice yearly, which has a subscription list
including academic libraries from all over the world. Occasional
academic forums are arranged to consider particular issues, either
on our own or jointly with other bodies, and these increasingly
involve professional archaeologists. With the exception of a part-time
officer principally handling membership and enquiries, the organisation
is entirely run by volunteers.
EVIDENCE
1. It is our view that priority should be
given to ensuring that the need to preserve and record the national
heritage should not lightly be subordinated to other demands such
as regeneration, industrial expansion or amenity improvement.
The DCMS should never forget that heritage, once destroyed, cannot
be re-created. One has only to look to the past to find examples
of what we now see as wanton destruction: the 18th Century demolition
of much of Hadrian's Wall to build a military road, or the 19th
Century removal of city walls and gates to ease traffic problems.
In particular, the less glamorous aspects of heritage, especially
industry, are often seen as unimportant or even as evidence of
past exploitation of workers which ought to be removed. It is
now widely acknowledged that Britain's only really significant
contribution to those fundamental changes which have changed the
curse of human history has been as initiator of the industrial
revolution. Moreover, apart from the prehistoric development of
agriculture this has been the most important. Britain was the
first country to have more people living in cities than in the
countryside: recently this has become true of the world as a whole.
High priority should be given to ensuring that where modern needs
absolutely require the destruction of either standing or buried
archaeology, proper record is made prior to destruction. The progress
which has been made using PPGs 15 and 16 should not be abandoned.
2. In the past English Heritage has been
invaluable in raising the profile of industrial archaeology, particularly
by its surveys of certain types of industrial monument such as
textile mills. Its guardianship of industrial monuments within
its care has been good, in particular avoiding the excessive tidying
up and prettifying which have blighted some local authority restorations.
It has done an excellent, and insufficiently recognised, job of
representing industrial heritage interests, perhaps without some
of the dogmatism which can plague its attitude to, for example,
listed medieval churches.
3. Understandable modern priorities for
the reuse of brownfield sites obviously pose especial problems
for industrial archaeology. Our view in general would be that
only in the case of sites of exceptional interest, because of
national importance, rarity, or because they are unusually complete,
perhaps with internal machinery, should preservation be considered.
Clearly, future tourist potential might affect any decision. However,
there should be more positive encouragement of adaptive reuse,
and certainly there is a pressing need for the revision of the
VAT status of such reuse. Most important, proper record should
be made of all site being destroyed. While development funding
should continue where there is redevelopment with commercial potential,
finance is also need where transport or amenity improvements are
the aim. A serious problem at present is the lack of a national
database of important sites. While such a database would not be
cheap, most of the information to create one is already in the
hands of the National Monuments Record, English Heritage, local
authorities, national preservation bodies and local individuals
and societies. We are in no position at present to suggest a figure,
but by governmental standards it would not be large for one-off
funding, and would both greatly simplify dealing with planning
applications and ensure that those many planning authorities which
neglect their industrial heritage have no excuse for ignorance.
4. Helping people understand the past of
their family, local area and community is important to their sense
of identity. For a very large section of the population, including
fairly recent immigrants, now defunct industries and the working
conditions within them form a significant part of that past. Hence
we would emphasise the importance of retaining some evidence of
that past, and this means machines and plant as well as buildings.
However, working sites, which give the best experience, almost
invariably have problems with disabled access and health and safety
legislation. Solutions are not easy but need to be found.
5. There can be no doubt that the effectiveness
of English Heritage has been and is being seriously undermined
by constant reorganisation, the significant increase in workload
with changes in planning regulation and totally inadequate financing
for these changes. English Heritage has done a good job in the
past and given the resources would do a good job in the future.
Certainly in recent years it has undertaken a number of valuable
initiatives in recording what is most significant in the surviving
industrial heritage, but none of these has been completed because
of lack of funding or organisational changes. The government needs
to give English Heritage a clear brief, adequate funds and let
it get on with it. Heritage matters even in crude financial terms
as one of Britain's two main, attractions to tourists: scenery
is the other, and that is more weather dependent. To allow it
to decay for lack of current money is to kill the goose which
lays the golden eggs.
We suspect that most of those involved with
heritage felt despair when London was awarded the Olympic Games
for 2012, foreseeing diversion of funds from heritage projects
towards sport in general. We can only reiterate our first point:
heritage once lost cannot be replaced. Industrial archaeologists
have particular concern in that the site of the Games is in an
area rich in the remains of the relatively small-scale industries
typical of industrial development in London. The Greater London
Industrial Archaeology Society is organising a major survey of
the affected areas, and support for this both in providing access
and finance would be most welcome. There can be no doubt that
the effectiveness of English Heritage has been and is being seriously
undermined by constant reorganisation, the significant increase
in workload with changes in planning regulation and totally inadequate
financing for these changes. English Heritage has done a good
job in the past and given the resources would do a good job in
the future. Certainly in recent years it has undertaken a number
of valuable initiatives in recording what is most significant
in the surviving industrial heritage, but none of these has been
completed because of lack of funding or organisational changes.
The government needs to give English Heritage a clear brief, adequate
funds and let it get on with it.
6. At the moment the industrial heritage
is in the hands of a very mixed bunch of bodies. Public bodies
include English Heritage, the National Trust, and local government,
through museums or semi-independent trusts. Then there are private
trusts and museums, normally charities, some of which are large
and professionally run and manned while others rely largely or
totally on voluntary labour. Heritage in the hands of public bodies
suffers the perpetual problem of having to fight for funding,
and is particularly hampered by the fact that it is normally an
optional activity not required by statute. Private concerns have
the need to attract funds and visitors, and for the smaller ones
the steady ageing of their volunteer work force. For both public
and private bodies the Heritage Lottery Fund has been invaluable
in providing capital towards major projects, though it is generally
of little help towards meeting the running costs once the project
is complete. Maintenance is the great problem of the industrial
heritage, in part the scarcity of appropriate skills (see point
but much more routine costs). Nature can reclaim open-air sites
remarkably rapidly. Much money has been wasted by allowing restored
sites or machinery to decay again. Heritage matters even in crude
financial terms as one of Britain's two main, attractions to tourists:
scenery is the other, and that is more weather dependent. To allow
it to decay for lack of current money is to kill the goose which
lays the golden eggs.
7. In the industrial heritage field there
are at least two firms able and willing to undertake major building
and plant restoration of all types, and there are a number of
individuals or firms with specialist skills, such as millwrights
and ironfounders. A great deal of work is undertaken by volunteers,
again often with specialist skills. The problem is not so much
now as in the future, for many of these workers are near retirement
or retired, and their skills are not being passed on. There is
also a similar problem with the manning of working industrial
museums. Planning authorities vary enormously in their attitude
to industrial recording: Essex, for example has done a great deal,
but most authorities little or nothing. It would help if local
authorities were required to employ planning and conservation
officers. Many authorities fail to refer planning applications
to the appropriate consultative society (such as the Victorian
Society or Council for British Archaeology).
13 February 2006
|
