Memorandum submitted by Cambridgeshire
County Council
1. This submission was drawn up in response
to a press notice issued by the DCMS Select Committee on 25 July
2006. It is intended to supplement the submissions originally
made to the report "Protecting and Preserving Our Heritage"
(HC 912).
1.1 The comments below were drawn up after
discussions between archaeologists, buildings conservation staff
and archivists. They represent issues that have been identified
as cross-service, mainly the creation, submission and storage
of archives relating to the historic environment. This covers
archaeological and listed building casework, and the creation
and storage of permanent archive.
1.2 The press notice identified three main
areas that required a response and this document is structured
accordingly.
2. Funding, with particular reference to
the adequacy of the budget for museums, galleries and archives,
and the impact of the London 2012 Olympics on Lottery funding
for their sector
2.1 Archaeologists and archivists consider
that HLF is now central to funding our services. However HLF funding
has not been used or available to support archiving and records
management within conservation teams in local planning authorities,
or related core local authority services. Whilst welcoming the
opportunities offered by the 2012 Olympics, we are concerned over
any dilution or reduction of the HLF funding available in the
run-up to the occasion, especially as increase in public access
has resulted in a decrease in the quality of collections management.
This is especially relevant in context of the Heritage Protection
Review, as to whether support for local authority historic environment
services should have to rely on funding from the HLF, rather than
being seen as part of the core services to be funded through DCLG.
2.2 HLF and other Lottery funding is being
increasingly focused on Outreach and public access. However this
cannot be used for funding the core functionality of our services
and compensate for the increasing pressures on local authority
funding. The practical issues of collections management are falling
behind the rise in increasing public access to and use of those
collections. HLF and other lottery monies raise awareness of archaeological
and archival collections, yet also increase awareness of the shortcomings
of those collections.
2.3 Good collections management is vital;
it covers accession, retention, storage, cataloguing and use;
however it is not glamorous and is increasingly singled out for
cuts in local authority budgets. HLF money will not address these
cuts except in specific circumstances such as the Access to Archives
Project. Cataloguing of archives is now so reduced that often
the only new catalogues are created by initiatives like A2A.
2.4 Archaeological archiving does have another
funding opportunity, but unfortunately this is neither adequate
nor fully exploited. Since developers under PPG16 fund the majority
of fieldwork, it is reasonable for the costs of preparation and
deposition of final archive to be borne by the developer. This
is the case in Cambridgeshire, for example. However, these charges
only cover initial costs and not ongoing care of the collections.
In addition, the delays experienced by some fieldwork projects
can result in the necessary archive work only being completed
several years after the initial project.
2.5 There is no direct funding available
to support management and archiving of Planning records, Building
Plan and Notice drawings, and other hard copy archives held by
local planning authorities.
3. Acquisition and disposal policies with
particular reference to due diligence obligations on acquisition
and legal restrictions on disposal of objects.
3.1 Paper archive forms the record of discussions
and decisions on a project or event. It falls into two categories:
current casework and public record. The former are active archives,
where the latter represent the long-term permanent record of a
case or project after its completion. For historic buildings and
sites, the cumulative record of interventions is vital for appropriate
ongoing management and advice, as well as for projects requiring
a formal application. Accurate plans "as existing" are
vital as a basis for proposals for works. Dated photographic records
are essential as a basis for management of historic areas, including
the Conservation Area Appraisals that are a statutory duty, and
the Reviews that are required under Best Value Performance Indicator
219. They are also essential as a basis for assessing unauthorised
works, and where necessary taking formal action.
3.2 Case files need to be accessible to
local authority staff but once completed can be deposited for
public consultation and access. Conservation services need to,
and building owners need to be encouraged to, build up selective
property records documenting interventions over time, allowing
assessment of significance and vulnerability to change, and providing
a cumulative and managed resource to support the management of
heritage assets. Such records are essential to support the Heritage
Partnership Agreements being introduced under HPR, to support
Conservation Plans and other long-term management plans for heritage
assets, and to provide the context for individual items of casework.
3.3 Archaeology possesses a set of standards
for the preparation of a permanent archive, called Management
of Archaeological Projects II (currently under review). This defines
a permanent archive and allows for a standard procedure to be
applied to an archaeological case file to create the necessary
permanent record. This is then stored along with the excavated
material as the public record. The final archive created through
the application of this procedure is considerably less than the
original case file.
3.4 There are no comparable standards for
the archiving of planning and listed casework. Too often, creation
of an archive has involved retention of basic information only
(application form, consent notice etc, without the plans and photographs
which are vital to assessing what has been approved. Vital hard
copy information is currently at risk due to pressures on space
and for paper-free offices. Digitally held data does not readily
allow the viewing and comparison (both in the office and on site)
of large scale plans (existing and proposed, plans, sections,
elevations etc) which are essential for conservation work. Appropriate
standards for the retention and management of archive files for
the historic built environment are badly needed.
3.5 The Record Offices that have to accept
such material would welcome the adoption of consistent standards
for the creation of archive files. There are currently no standards
specified by DCLG or DCMS for archives generated through the planning
system, including those required by planning conditions. Repository
space in Record Offices is at a premium, and it is sensible that
any sifting and assessment of files is undertaken by the relevant
professionals to a national standard before deposition. There
is currently no provision for resourcing this activity; this needs
to be addressed urgently.
3.6 Good preparation of final archives also
helps accurate cataloguing and future access. This is important
to aid the public record, as it allows better searching and other
standards. Such archives are normally accessed through either
County Record Offices or Historic Environment Records.
3.7 The main means of accessing archaeological
information is through the relevant Historic Environment Record.
Other archival information can be accessed through a County Record
Office. A key distinction is that Historic Environment Records
are not mainly primary archives. Information in an HER is usually
distilled and catalogued from other sources, and County Record
Offices contain primary archive. An example would be information
about an archaeological excavation: the HER would contain a summary
and description of the excavation, and a copy of the report, but
the primary excavation paper archive is usually held elsewhere.
3.8 Given the proposed wider scope of HERs
under the Heritage Protection Review, it is logical to increase
the amount of information relating to listed buildings and other
comparable case files that is available through HERs. In particular,
HERs are increasingly computerised and providing access to digital
archive and information. Local planning authorities are also required,
under Best Value Indicator BV 157 and to comply with the Freedom
of Information Act, to make as much information as possible readily
available on the web. The scope for a complementary approach with
information being provided through HERs in conjunction with Local
Planning Authorities has been severely limited by the development
and promotion of unlinked data systems and standards.
3.9 The potential for digital dissemination
of case files and other archive is immense, but requires a major
investment to create digital records out of paper and subsequently
the capacity of local authority servers to store digital photographs
and plans. The management of digital information as an archive
depends on the permanence of the records and of the systems allowing
access to them. The permanence of digital data has not yet been
adequately considered; what is clear is that:
(a) creation of digital archives also entails
considerable ongoing investment in renewing and maintaining access;
and
(b) any management and disposal of digital
archives has to be carried out by properly informed staff.
3.10 The principle of a robust approach
to the creation of an archive also needs to be applied to the
material archive generated by archaeological excavations or through
conditions on listed building consents. There is a need for considered
and nationally agreed standards for the retention of archaeological
material. An archive is a permanent record of a site, and as such
its contents need to reflect that site; beyond that, material
can be recorded and then used for educational or handling purposes,
or simply discarded. However, any receiving body should be careful
in taking a unilateral approach to retention as part of its collections
management, as this can seriously impede future use and research.
Hence any such policy should be developed against a background
of national guidance.
3.11 Where collections management is undertaken
by a museum, there is again a need for robust acquisition and
disposal policies, although this is covered under current Accreditation
processes. Historical museum acquisition policies have left a
legacy of full stores and problematic catalogues, all of which
need to be addressed.
4. The remit and effectiveness of DCMS,
the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and other relevant
organisations in representing cultural interests inside and outside
Government.
4.1 We consider that DCMS suffers from being
one of the smaller government departments, and subsequently issues
that the Historic Environment sector consider to be of significance
may be marginalised. This may be a further issue in the preparations
for the 2012 Olympics, and the associated changing of priorities
within DCMS.
4.2 There is a serious need for the development
and promotion of coherent and holistic standards for the cultural
heritage as a whole and it reasonable for DCMS to take the lead
in such an initiative. DCMS should liaise with DCLG to ensure
a joined-up approach to archiving policy and standards for records
generated through the planning system, including the promotion,
recognition and resourcing of archiving and records management
within local planning authorities. There is also a requirement
for co-ordination with DCLG e-government data management and standards
to ensure dialogue between systems, drawing on opportunities arising
from core DCLG initiatives including e-government and other initiatives.
4.3 It is generally acknowledged within
the existing heritage protection mechanisms that there is a problem
created by the relationship between DCMS and formerly ODPM, and
the fact that both departments had different responsibilities
for the historic environment. This dilution or oversight creates
confusion and can weaken the position of historic environment
issues within government. A similar situation exists with regard
to archives.
4.4 The MLA is overseen by DCMS. However,
the role of the MLA is mainly focused towards public access and
involvement. Many of the issues raised in this submission relate
to professional collections and information management, on which
MLA does not take the lead. The body for maintenance of standards
in archiving is the National Archives; this organisation exists
under the umbrella of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
This split oversight weakens both areas of involvement.
4.5 Archaeological collections management
is cross-sector: it is increasingly common for such collections
to be held outside the museums sector in dedicated archaeological
storage facilities, yet these fall outside the remit of the MLA.
Whilst English Heritage may have some input, financial restraints
on that body are such that their involvement is increasingly limited.
The establishment of the Archaeological Archives Forum does recognise
the cross-sector problems being faced, but has little ability
or financial opportunity to affect change.
4.6 The MLA has increasingly been taking
a wider strategic role on a regional level, and it remains to
be seen whether this increases or decreases its effectiveness
in leading the sector.
September 2006
| 
