Memorandum submitted by Community Landscape
Archaeology Survey Project (CLASP)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Structure
CLASP is a Registered Charity, number 1111667,
that acts as an umbrella organisation for local history, archaeological
and metal detecting associations in West Northamptonshire. The
purpose of CLASP is to act as a proactive facilitator in bringing
archaeology enthusiasts across the community together to investigate
their local past. Professional archaeologists lead the activities
and contribute specialist skills when necessary—but the
community volunteers are encouraged and enabled to learn skills
for themselves and to develop a level of competence in many aspects
of archaeological investigation. CLASP also provides fieldwork
opportunities, talks and lectures as part of its commitment to
encouraging local communities to become stakeholders in their
archaeological heritage. We would encourage members of your Committee
to visit the following websites to appreciate the work undertaken
by CLASP and some of its participating organisations:
1.2 Funding
Our funding is achieved from membership fees,
private donations and grants from district and parish councils,
Projects have also been funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and
other charities through collaborative ventures with an academic
from the University of Northampton. All grant funding has to be
achieved by specific and detailed application. All administrative
support is voluntary and undertaken by our own members.
1.3 Format of Submission
CLASP welcomes the Enquiry being undertaken
by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee as an opportunity to
outline the possible role, and portray the significance of local
communities and the voluntary sector in the future of archaeological
research and protection of our archaeological heritage. Our response
is structured, as far as possible, to be aligned to the areas
that you intend to address in your enquiry in the order that they
were listed in the initial press release. Any other points we
raise are reflected in paragraph 8. This submission is prepared
solely for the purposes of this Enquiry and has not been utilised
elsewhere.
2. WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT FOR
CULTURE, MEDIA
AND SPORT
SHOULD IDENTIFY
AS PRIORITIES
IN THE
FORTHCOMING HERITAGE
WHITE PAPER
2.1 Constraints on Professional Archaeology
It must be recognised that the professional
and commercial sector in Archaeology and Heritage Conservation
lack the resources and legislative standing necessary fully to
meet the challenges and demands of archaeological investigation
and conservation in the 21st Century. The limitations of current
financial support and the structure of British archaeology mitigate
against a proactive stance in delivering an investigatory approach
that could result in a more holistic planning framework for the
national resource.
Professional units, are developer driven and
dependant on commercial outcomes which are not always necessarily
beneficial for British archaeology. The unfocused remit of the
universities also tends towards a less cohesive approach to tackling
the issues and problems affecting this area of our national consciousness.
Whilst our present structure is appropriate to protect archaeology
threatened by development, there is no similar active organisation
to support English Heritage in identifying and protecting archaeology
threatened by changing land use, development or agriculture.
In a real sense we are the product of our past
and an acceptance of that fact is to realise how important the
past is to the future of our country. We have a responsibility
to ensure an ongoing programme of investigation into the archaeological
resource of our nation. In addition it is important that any future
process which is devised should be as inclusive as possible. The
area of archaeology is already recognising the potential role
and usefulness of community based work and its potential impact
if properly harnessed.
2.2 Prioritisation
CLASP welcomes the proposal from the Heritage
Minister in 2004 to establish a "Register of Historic Sites
and Buildings of England". We consider that the creation
of a full database of the nation's heritage is of great importance
as whilst there are both the National Monuments Register and local
Sites and Monuments Registers these are by no means comprehensive.
A wealth of information is held not only on these lists but also
in various independent archaeological reports including many in
journals of individual antiquarians and their societies. Much
information will also be held in the records of local history
societies and similar bodies, together with that held in the heads
of local people. CLASP would hope that recognition of the Minister's
proposal is made in the forthcoming White Paper and that the proposed
Register is given some form of statutory support, including placing
a requirement on local authorities to give recognition and support
locally to the maintenance of such resources.
There should however be a significant role for
Community based projects to assist in the creation and continued
development of this Register. It would perhaps be appropriate
for some "snapshots" to be taken into the extent of
the work required and to develop "best practice" by
enlisting some pilot projects involving community groups in various
parts of the country. Hopefully this Register will enable policy
priorities to be developed for investigation and conservation
and these could then be reflected in work and grant applications
for resources by community organisations. We would stress however
that any priorities developed in this way must be flexible enough
to permit independent research either by professionals, academic
bodies or community based organisations.
2.3 Applications for Financial Support
We will address the question of funding later
in this submission but it is essential that the White Paper reflects
the importance of funding for voluntary groups and endeavours
to establish some form of commonality in applications. This would
therefore help to simplify the application process by allowing
such things as referees' reports, organisational constitutions,
and accounts to have a common standard. For example an application
for Heritage Lottery Funding is, understandably, an onerous task
and when made in parallel with an application to a Local Authority
involves duplication of effort; with commonality these processes
would be easier. Prioritisation as mentioned in paragraph 2.2
above would assist in formulating applications for grants.
3. THE REMIT
AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF DCMS, ENGLISH
HERITAGE AND
OTHER RELEVANT
ORGANISATIONS IN
REPRESENTING HERITAGE
INTERESTS INSIDE
AND OUTSIDE
GOVERNMENT
In matters of day to day archaeology and conservation
we consider English Heritage as the buffer between the practitioner,
either professional or community based, and the DCMS. It does
appear that apart from areas of overall policy and sites of national
and international significance then the DCMS has a limited role
in archaeological issues. It is our view that the DCMS should
be both statutorily responsible for the proposed Register of Historic
Sites and Buildings of England and guarantors of the national
heritage in questions of development, and where appropriate normal
land use is causing serious degradation.
4. THE BALANCE
BETWEEN HERITAGE
AND DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS IN
PLANNING POLICY
It is not practical to ignore the demands on
land for housing and commercial development if the social and
economic well being of the nation is to progress. It is however
appropriate for land to be properly investigated for archaeological
material prior to development. In certain circumstances it may
be appropriate for community archaeology to be involved in this
process. Where significant finds are located then, according to
their status, the development should be tailored to protect and
conserve these for future generations. These standards must be
given statutory recognition and should be considered in the White
Paper. Developers should be expected to meet the cost of either
all or a significant part of these works. The creation of Development
Corporations in certain parts of the country puts increased pressure
on the heritage and again their work must be properly monitored
and investigated, archaeologically, where appropriate. See specific
comments in paragraph 8.2.
5. ACCESS TO
HERITAGE AND
THE POSITION
OF HERITAGE
AS A
CULTURAL ASSET
IN THE
COMMUNITY
5.1 Partnership Between the "Official"
and Community Sectors
It is obvious that Statutory Bodies like English
Heritage and the National Trust must bear the principal burden
to ensure that our Nation's Heritage is both conserved and made
available for easy and affordable access by the community. There
is obviously a role for the community, both as individuals and
organisations, to work in partnership with these bodies and other
collaborators to help provide community access. There are however
many sites that, for whatever reason, are not overseen or managed
by these bodies. In many cases it is these to which community
based organisations can really make the difference in their investigation
and conservation. This also applies to providing post investigation
access and educational opportunities to the wider community. In
many instances sites are on private land that has commercial importance,
influencing decisions by landowners whether they should grant
access for the initial archaeological investigations and subsequent
general access by the wider community. For these reasons the Countryside
Stewardship Scheme recently invigorated by DEFRA is so important
to allow access whilst also providing recompense for the landowner.
These schemes must be supported if our Heritage is to survive
for future generations.
5.3 Training
For community involvement to be successful it
is important that the volunteers involved, the majority of who
do not have relevant prior qualifications, are not only given
day to day professional supervision but also provided with opportunities
for formalised and appropriate training. This may be directly
provided by the organisation or obtained externally. Many volunteers
fund their own training. It would therefore be of great assistance
if external support could be given to training initiatives. Support
should also be available in the form of subsidised input from
external academic staff and in providing assisted places in appropriate
external courses. There will in the future be a need to develop
a more flexible form of accreditation for training of community
volunteers to allow them to take their experience elsewhere.
5.4 Interface Between Professionals and Community
Input
There is perhaps also a need for professional
bodies to recognise the relevance of the community in archaeology
in the United Kingdom and that if volunteers are properly supported
they need not be seen as a threat to either professional standards
or the jobs of paid archaeologists. We would submit, as previously
discussed, that the work undertaken by Community groups would
never be done if it were not for their input. In fact their work
creates work for professionals in all areas from scientific testing
to supervisory opportunities and future investigations when important
sites are discovered.
5.6 National Archaeology "Days"
and Local Heritage Open Days
Annual schemes encouraging the opening of sites
of interest that are normally closed to public access for the
majority of the year are welcomed and should be encouraged. They
provide opportunities for the local community not only to see
these events but also assist with their organisation and in turn
perhaps their conservation and interpretation over a longer period.
They are effective ways of raising awareness and meeting the aspirations
of people in their efforts to understand the past of their locality.
5.7 Landowners and Tenants
As previously discussed, the effects of archaeological
activity can be intrusive and impinge on commercial, including
farming, activities that are carried out on a day to day basis.
There is a need to ensure that relevant bodies, eg the NFU, Country
Landowners Association, are involved with community groups and
that there is an ongoing two way flow of information where both
aspirations from the community and perceived concerns from landowners
and tenants can be explored and constructively resolved. Perhaps
this could also be explored in the rural environment through the
changing role of DEFRA.
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 English Heritage
We note the current review of funding for English
Heritage and whilst we do not feel appropriately qualified to
discuss this in detail we would urge that future funding is adequate
to support their activities. However a greater focus on community
based involvement in archaeology and conservation would be helpful.
6.2 Heritage Lottery Fund
Whilst we recognise the significance of the
successful bid for London to host the 2012 Olympics and the call
that will make on all available funding, not least the National
Lottery, it is important that funds for other new initiatives,
ongoing and allied projects are not totally denuded of resources.
If this is allowed to happen organisations that rely upon Lottery
funding as a major income source may well flounder through lack
of resources. It will also redirect an unsustainable demand to
other sources of funding. As the Olympics will attract tourism
and visitors for events that utilise the Olympic facilities after
2012 it is important to ensure that the wider national heritage
is protected and enhanced to attract these visitors to the hinterland
beyond the immediate London area.
6.3 Sharing of Lottery Funds
CLASP is aware of the ongoing consultation regarding
the review of allocation of lottery funds as from 2009. It is
perhaps not appropriate for us to speak "either way"
as to the percentage of funding given to other sectors but concentrate
on that given to support Heritage. It is our view that whilst
we would always like more, the current apportionment of 16.7%
of the money allocated for good causes is not unreasonable although
we would of course like to return to the original 20% figure.
We justify our view of this figure because of the increasing importance
of the Community in investigating and conserving our heritage.
As mentioned elsewhere in this submission increasing pressures
on local authority budgets are reducing the amounts available
from those sources to support this work. See paragraph 8. If Heritage
Lottery Fund grants are reduced as well, then the threat to the
conservation of our heritage will be such that instead of moving
forward, work will either stagnate or be reduced. Our heritage
will then be lost forever.
7. 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; AND
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
7.1 Organisational Roles
There is an important role for English Heritage,
the National Lottery Fund and other non-governmental and charitable
organisations in the areas regarding community involvement currently
under discussion. There must be an important partnership and supporting
role between English Heritage, the National Trust and the community
sector. This also applies, where relevant to applicable charitable
funds. If priorities for work can be established then the task
of the Heritage Lottery Fund and other charities would be made
much easier when allocating grants but also permitting proper
local research and academic work. As discussed previously we see
the need for a standardised approach on the format of applications
from community bodies for prospective financial grants.
7.2 Position of Heritage Conservation and
Archival Storage in Local Government
CLASP has concern that the investigation, recording
and subsequent conservation of archaeological sites is not a priority
in some council areas. Please see additional reference to this
in paragraph 8 below. We would urge that the Committee consider
this in the context of the proposed Register of Historic Sites
and Buildings of England. There is also a need for the Committee
to consider the support given to local authorities to maintain
databases and contribute towards the establishment and ongoing
running costs for archives properly to store materials found during
investigations in the area they supervise. This probably needs
to be done on a county basis.
Adequate facilities need to be made available
for community and academic access to these archives. If these
facilities, including existing databases of known "finds"
and sites, are not available then it is difficult, if not impossible
for local authority planners adequately to protect our heritage
when planning applications are received. Hopefully the proposed
"Register" will assist this latter role. The question
arises "Is there a need to consider these issues on a Regional
Basis?" If this were seen as the way forward then structures
would have to be put in place to ensure local access to archives
and databases was maintained. It is also important to look at
the role the community can play in looking after and delivering
such a system.
7.3 Museums
In the local authority districts that cover
the geographical area and neighbouring areas of interest to CLASP
we have of late seen the closure and reduction in museum services
in recent years. To provide proper community access there must
be adequate museum facilities within a reasonable distance. To
avoid duplication of effort these should perhaps be established
as a county resource as opposed to a District Council issue. There
needs to be defined support to councils to maintain museums together
with statutory guidelines to ensure this is done. The view is
often put forward that these are of little local priority; CLASP
would dispute this.
7.4 Scientific Testing and Conservation of
Materials
External support to Community Archaeology is
required with scientific and professional testing of material
samples for dating and source identification. These tests are
very expensive but important for diagnosis in modern archaeology.
This equally applies to conservation of vulnerable materials found
during excavation. It is of little use for materials to be found
during investigations only to have them lost for the future owing
to deterioration through lack of proper conservation. Again the
most cost-effective way forward here, especially with conservation,
could be assisted training and support for competent individuals
within the community groups. Individuals in the community sector
who are given support to train in these skills subsequently utilising
them commercially then there may have to be a structure for recompense
to the subsidising body where this is external.
7.5 Site Conservation
Proper conservation of a site post investigation
is essential if our heritage is to be preserved for future generations.
The Countryside Stewardship Schemes go some way to achieving this
with grants to take land out of productive agriculture. This does
not however provide the costs for physical conservation of a site
especially if it is to be maintained "open" for view
by the community. On a non-commercial basis there is a need for
individuals, probably from a community organisation, to be properly
trained in initial conservation and ongoing management of historical
sites where these are not under the auspices of organisations
like English Heritage and the National Trust.
7.6 Financial Support for Report Preparation
and Writing
At the conclusion and possibly at interim points
during an investigation it is important that professional reports
are prepared and written. It is pointless to carry out an investigation
if there is no dissemination of the findings making the detail
of the investigation available to others. Both for CLASP and its
member organisations this does present a serious problem.
Our Archaeological Director, who is an academic
at a local university, donates the majority of his time pro
bono to the organisation. Whilst his employer maybe prepared
to support research involvement, the responsibility to publish
is an onerous one. It is imperative that we look at financial
recompense for responsible employers to meet the costs involved
in allowing staff to facilitate community work. Raising sufficient
cash to meet this obligation is currently very challenging for
our organisation. If the community is to perform a credible service
to the investigation and conservation of the nation's heritage
then there should be a process by which specialist in put can
be obtained and financed.
8. ADDITIONAL
COMMENT
Since the commencement of writing of this Submission
this organisation has become increasingly concerned with two consultation
exercises that are currently taking place here in Northamptonshire.
Details are set out below. Taken together the two issues expose
a potentially damaging threat to local heritage, much of which
is of significance well beyond this area. We will keep you appraised
of the ongoing situation locally by way of supplementary submissions
if requested. We would ask the Committee to consider the implications
of these issues, especially as the situation may well be reflected
elsewhere in the country.
8.1 Northamptonshire County Council Budget
This Council has recently issued their budgetary
proposals for 2005-06; these reflect massive cuts in the services
provided by the Council, especially in what they describe as non-core
areas. It would appear from the initial proposals that the department
that provides archaeological support to the county, especially
in areas of planning and development will be seriously affected.
At the time of writing it would also appear that this would mean
the Sites and Monuments Record is under serious threat. CLASP
does intend responding to the consultation period for these proposals.
8.2 West Northamptonshire Development Corporation
This is a new body that has recently been established
through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to effect the
creation of major areas of new housing and expansion in the western
half of the county. The Prospectus for this Corporation is currently
subject to a consultation period ending in early March. Again
CLASP does intend making a response to this consultation. It would
appear that similar Corporations are being created in other parts
of the country. Having made an initial analysis of the Prospectus
it does appear that no consideration is being formally given to
the investigation and conservation of the heritage sites in the
areas subject to development proposals being progressed by the
Corporation. As their powers are considerable, to the extent that
they will assume planning responsibilities from existing local
authorities, this causes us considerable concern as to the priority
to be given to conserving the nation's heritage in this area.
9. CONCLUSION
Much needs to be done if the future of the nation's
heritage is preserved for future generations. It is vital that
the role of the Community Sector in assuring this future is not
only identified but also supported by Government, NGO's, Local
Authorities and the professional archaeological sector. We would
hope that this Enquiry also identifies these needs and reflects
them in its final report. If we, as a nation are to not only to
protect but also understand and interpret our archaeological past,
then partnership with local communities is vital for an effective
future. CLASP is prepared to expand on any part of this submission
both in written and/or oral format, including the provision of
specific examples.
16 January 2006
| 
