Memorandum submitted to British Archaeological
Jobs Resource
The British Archaeological Jobs and Resources
Organisation was set up in 1999 to meet the needs of archaeological
employment in the UK. Since then the website has expanded to cover
all heritage based Organisations, provide Guidance in aspects
of archaeology from fieldwork to Health and safety and has provided
a framework for pay and responsibility which is now accepted by
most archaeological and heritage agencies.
The daily visitor report suggests that over
2,500 individuals visit the site to keep up to date with jobs,
policies and events. The BAJR forum has over 500 members and from
this group of people who include Curators, Contractors, Government
Heritage advisors, Heritage Professionals, Academics and interested
members of the public, it has been possible to create a response
based on a request for comments. The comments are based on a number
of responses received and edited prior to public consultation
and submission.
The Director of BAJR, David Connolly MAAIS FSA
Scot is a County Development Control Archaeologist, Contractor
and Freelance Consultant for TPS Planning Ltd, with over 25 years
experience of all aspects of archaeology in the UK and abroad.
1. What the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport should identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage
White Paper
(a) Improve scheduled monument legislation
to remove loopholes and exemptions, such as the current exemption
of ploughing. This should already be taking place within the Heritage
Protection Review.
(b) Re-vamp the now outdated and mostly obsolete
AAI section.
(c) Put pressure/legal obligation on LPAs
to actually use the PPGs properly, including of courses PPG16,
rather than ignoring them when they are inconvenient.
(d) In any other area guidelines are meant
to be followed but this seems to be an exception when it comes
to planning with the problem that archaeology is always seen as
something which can be ignored. With no statutory power there
is no requirement for archaeology, and councils are not keen to
follow up breaches when the site has been damaged already. Even
fines of up to £1,000 for breach of conditions can be seen
as "cheaper" than actually having archaeological investigation.
(e) To implement some of the APPAG recommendations.
The APPAG recommendations were applauded when it came out, however
since then we have seen almost no movement at all, making me professionals
and public more cynical about the gulf between talk and action
on heritage issues.
(f) Re-working of scheduled and listing procedures
and rules. Removing class consent which is still allowing ploughing
to continue on scheduled monuments.
(g) The main thrust should be to implement
the recommendations of APPAG.
2. The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English
Heritage and other relevant organisations in representing heritage
interests inside and outside Government
(a) Reformation of the RCHME to provide the
sector with a body that can dedicate itself to the monitoring
and surveying of monuments. EH could then dedicate itself to the
formation of policy and providing guidance.
(b) DCMS and EH should provide firmer leadership
to the LPAs to ensure that they do their job according to guidelines.
(c) Accommodation should be reached between
EH and the National Trust so that neither body duplicates the
work of the other. Also, if they remain as two bodies, there should
be a single membership scheme covering all sites and properties.
That a more democratic system is introduced to appoint members
to the board, or commissions, of each organisation.
(d) EH does need to put more of its resources
into earthwork surveys, architectural surveys and research into
the state of the historic environment.
(e) Understanding of the changing needs of
the public. Heritage should no longer be seen as a backdrop to
franchised teashops and centred on "national" sites.
If these organisations wish to represent heritage in the government
then a clear idea of what they are representing, why they are
representing it and its relevance to the public who both live
near and/or visit. For example, EH has categorised the Thornborough
Henges as a site of national importance, but without showing it
the same financial and resource support as Stonehenge it is seen
as preferential and unequal.
3. The balance between heritage and development
needs in planning policy
(a) There has to be some way for planning
officials to be made to listen to EH when is confirms a site is
nationally important (maybe a clear definition of nationally important
needs to be given).
(b) Heritage is under the greatest pressure
from development ever, and more emphasis needs to be put on full
excavation (rather than watching briefs) and preservation in-situ.
Although PPG16 already states this, it is just a mater of application.
(c) Review of PPG16 badly overdue.
(d) The original PPG16 was a step forward
but it is now outdated and needs reviewing. Archaeology has been
transformed from a search for knowledge (in general) to providing
a step to granting of planning conditions. This makes most archaeology
one of excavating areas where there is development rather than
archaeology. The public are also (again in general) excluded from
the process rather than being part of it. There are notable exceptions
of course, but the rise of the Archaeological Contractor (nearly
200 contractors and some 5-6000 archaeologists in the UK—in
Estonia for example there are 40 archaeologists and three companies)
is based on development rather than archaeology.
(e) Increased development produces increased
workload for LPA and there is no overall increase in funding,
(in many cases there are cutbacks), with the duty of monitoring
falling on a group of curators and development control archaeologists
who have to create non-standard specifications for working standards.
This in turn causes problems for contractors who may be able to
carry out work to one standard in one county but will be subjected
to differing criteria in another.
4. Access to heritage and the position of
heritage as a cultural asset in the community
(a) Heritage is a vital asset to the community
and, although there are constraints on its use, should be accessible
where the site allows.
(b) Heritage tourism brings revenue to the
country and a pride in our past to the people on both a national
and local level. Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries
in the world and one of the biggest money-makers for this country.
The past could be brought to life and used it to spread employment
to both archaeologists and the local communities.
(c) More money needs to be put into making
sites and records accessible, starting with a heritage outreach
officer in every SMR/HER office.
(d) Governments talk about lack of funds
but can find money for their own pet projects.
(e) Definitely more money for SMRs/HERs—integration
and better communication between all SMRs and the NMR. Money for
computerisation and use of GIS where not presently in place. Support,
training and resources to allow SMRs to respond adequately to
the new environmental stewardship schemes (funding from DEFRA?)
(f) Very often the community are seen as
the end user, but no real thought goes into how this is achieved,
an SMR/HER that is truly accessible and tied into other aspects
of life and tourism. Sites to visit, places to stay, other venues
to visit, heritage and heritage or arts based events.
(g) Requirements for public involvement with
archaeology, adopting monuments, learning about the past in the
local area and how to appreciate and enjoy it, even as far as
getting involved with recording new sites, monitoring present
ones, provisions should be made to utilise the British interest
in the past rather than sidelining the amateur involvement.
5. 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
(a) It seems EH needs more funding as do
museums etc. A lot of heritage is only conserved with the assistance
of Lottery funding so this should be a priority. The Olympics
will bring large amounts of revenue to the areas holding the events.
There should be as much private funding from these areas as possible
(remember partnerships work).
(b) More permanent sources of funding need
to be found, rather than potentially temporary ones such as the
Olympics.
(c) The Olympics will mean LESS money for
other parts of the DCMS—EH is at the bottom of the pile
at the bottom of DCMS and DCMS is at the bottom of the pile for
the treasury. We need to be funded by more than one government
department (we are closely linked to ODPM, DEFRA etc too). Olympics
may mean more money in terms of commercial contracts however.
(d) Commercial interest and requirements
will be weighted in favour of development rather than archaeological
interest.
6. What the 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
(a) EH's role is a protector of heritage
so why should that change. Local authorities are also charged
with protecting heritage for the community so that should be enforced
in stronger legislation.
(b) A scheme of "join one get membership
of the other for a discount" is probably do-able if there
is the political will within EH and the National Trust. Probably
most people who are members of one are members of the other. It
was a cheeky but successful decision for the former Ministry of
Works to offer "membership" to the public of a body
that is technically part of the state and therefore already owned
by the people.
(c) I think that some kind of accommodation
should be reached between EH and the National Trust so that neither
body duplicates the work of the other. Also that if they remain
as two bodies, there should be a single membership scheme covering
all sites and properties. Also that a more democratic system is
introduced to appoint members to the board or commissions of each
organisation.
(d) EH concentrates on its core role of protection
and study of national heritage rather than promotion of events
and scenic castles. In recent years, the distinct impression is
that EH has been mutating into a second-rate imitation of the
NT; all tea rooms and castles, and seems to have lost interest
in the more serious archaeological, planning and sustainability
issues facing heritage in the UK.
7. 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
(a) In our opinion you can never have too
many professionals with conservation skills. Conservation should
play an important part in planning decisions. There needs to be
more education of conservation given to the whole community but
especially planning authorities, this will make more people aware
of conservation needs.
(b) Without an awareness raising exercise
in both Local and National Govt of the importance of the historic
environment and its place in the community it will be difficult
to understand or justify the short term expense (though long term
benefit) of having professionals with appropriate skills. Why
rebuild walls using traditional techniques, why use lime mortar,
why use skilled carpenters.. these can only be justified if the
public realise the benefit to the society.
TO SUMMARISE
The main organisations charged with protecting
"our" heritage should have clearly defined roles and
be backed by appropriate legislation. These include (but are not
limited to) English Heritage, the National Trust, Local Authority
Planning Archaeologists within ALGAO, the Council for British
Archaeology, the Institute for Field Archaeologists, RESCUE, Institute
of Historic Building Conservation, British Archaeological Jobs
& Resources organisation.
The PPG16 document should be revised as a matter
of urgency.
The recommendations set out in APPAG should
be enacted.
Community involvement and integration should
be encouraged wherever possible.
A national policy for utilising the heritage
resource in tourism and local potential.
Support for standards in all heritage work,
ensuring a consistent guidance for the UK.
11 January 2006
|
