Memorandum submitted by Cambridgeshire
County Council
I am writing in my capacity of Head of Cambridgeshire
County Council Archaeology Service in response to the DCMS Inquiry
into Heritage. The Archaeology Service maintains the Cambridgeshire
Historic Environment Record, advises on planning and countryside
issues, undertakes research through its archaeological field unit,
and provides a programme of outreach and learning for the communities
of Cambridgeshire.
What the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
should identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage White
Paper
— DCMS should promote joined-up working
between English Heritage and local government, and between the
different tiers of local government, to ensure that the proposed
changes arising from the Heritage Protection Review (HPR) are
most effectively implemented.
— Adequate resources must be provided
to both English Heritage and local government to implement the
new system proposed under HPR.
— DCMS must recognise the pivotal role
of well-developed and adequately resourced information bases (as
provided by the network of Historic Environment Records and the
National Monuments Record) in implementing the HPR.
The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage
and other relevant organisations in representing heritage interests
inside and outside Government
— HPR has required active partnership
between DCMS, English Heritage, ALGAO and IHBC, and has shown
that they can work very effectively together on strategic policy
issues. All too often, however, their effectiveness has been constrained
by the limited resources available to them.
— The influence of both DCMS and English
Heritage on overall government policy appears very weak, and too
often their views seem to be regarded as secondary in importance
to those of the more "heavyweight" government departments
and advisors.
The balance between heritage and development needs
in planning policy
— There has been increasing recognition
in recent years that heritage makes a significant contribution
to economic prosperity and regeneration in the UK, and that heritage
and development need not necessarily be in conflict.
— PPG16 recognised archaeological remains
as a material consideration in the planning process and as a finite
and non-renewable resource. There must be a strong and continuing
presumption in favour of their physical preservation.
— PPG16 has been instrumental in promoting
development-led archaeological work in the UK—in the Cambridge
Sub-Region, for example, which is among the fastest-growing areas
in the country, there are around 200 archaeological interventions
in response to development each year.
— It is clear that PPG16 is in serious
need of revision to reflect experience gained since its publication
in 1990, particularly in requiring developers to pay for the full
scientific analysis, publication, dissemination and archiving
of the results of development-led archaeological work.
Access to heritage and the position of heritage
as a cultural asset in the community
— Access to, and conservation of, heritage
assets must remain a priority for future investment and development—heritage
makes a significant contribution to the economic wealth of this
country.
— Heritage can also make an enormous
contribution to a community's sense of pride and place—particularly
in new communities such as those being developed in the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough
Growth Areas.
— Cambridgeshire Archaeology runs a
highly successful Outreach and Learning programme, which this
year reached a record 10,000 people—community interest in
the heritage has never been so high.
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
— Whilst we warmly welcome and support
the London Olympics (and indeed believe that the nation's heritage
has much to contribute to the Olympic offer), we are very concerned
about the possible diversion of funding away from the heritage
sector, where so much has been achieved with the support of the
Heritage Lottery Fund.
— We are particularly concerned about
the threat to the future of the Local Heritage Initiative, which
has been hugely successful in promoting and supporting community
access to, and involvement with, the local heritage.
— Any threat to this source of funding
will have profoundly retrograde effects on the heritage sector
in this country. Community participation in heritage activities
is at an all time high, and it is vital that we are able to respond
to that interest.
— English Heritage remains highly regarded
in the heritage sector, but its role as a significant partner
in heritage projects has been progressively eroded as its budgets
have diminished. It is vital that its funding is protected from
further decline.
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
— Since its inception, English Heritage
has played a vital role in the management, protection and promotion
of the nation's heritage, as well as in providing an invaluable
lead in training, guidance, expertise and best practice.
— In recent years however its influence
on policy and protection, as well as research and development,
has been severely weakened by successive government reviews, and
it is important that this trend is reversed, allowing it to play
a more active and self-confident role in championing the nation's
heritage.
— English Heritage will also have a
vital regulatory role under the proposed HPR regime in ensuring
that any powers devolved to local authorities are not undermined
by local political considerations.
— There are likely to be significant
resource implications for local authorities taking on new responsibilities
under HPR. It is important that different tiers of local government
work in close partnership to ensure the effectiveness of a unified
consent procedure and designation system.
— In recent years, HLF has become the
major funding body for heritage-based community events and public
access projects in this country, and has largely replaced government
and English Heritage funding in this regard. It is important that
this excellent work is maintained and that the contribution it
has made to the promotion and understanding of the nation's heritage
is maintained and developed.
— There is also a shortage of accessible
space for the long-term care, storage and display of archaeological
collections.
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
— The shortage of trained professionals
is not limited to conservation officers—there is a more
general shortage of historic environment professionals such as
archaeologists and conservators across the country. Training and
development of the skills base will be even more crucial for the
success of the proposed new designation regime.
— Historic environment professionals
in local government often lack the voice to influence major decision-making.
This might be addressed by a stronger lead from central government
on the importance of the historic environment. Best Value Performance
Indicator 205, which requires local authorities to have access
to specialist heritage advice, will be helpful here, though it
should in future be extended to County Councils. The HELM initiative
might have been more successful in this respect had it secured
the active support of local government heritage professionals.
January 2006
|
