cmscom new inquiry

[Hugh]

Okay, here we go:

1? What the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage White Paper;
Re-work scheduled monument legislation to remove the loopholes and exemptions. Perhaps create a new type of designation which has the power to stop ploughing on a site. Also remove or re-vamp the now outdated and mostly obselete AAI section.
Put pressure/legal obligation on LPAs to actually use the PPGs properly, including of coures PPG16, rather than ignoring them when they are inconvenient.

2? The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage and other relevant organisations in representing heritage interests inside and outside Government;
The RCHME should be reformed if EH is going to continue to be turned into a government body so that monument surveys etc can become more plentiful to assist in the monitoring of the survival of them.
DCMS and EH should provide firmer leadership to the LPAs to ensure that they do their jobs right.

3? The balance between heritage and development needs in planning policy;
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.

4? Access to heritage and the position of heritage as a cultural asset in the community;
More money needs to be put into making sites and records accessable, starting with a heritage outreach officer in every SMR/HER office.


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;
More permanent sources of funding need to be found, rather than potentially temporary ones such as the Olympics.

The last two need more thinking about
Don't disagree with me too strongly, I'm easily upset [xx(]

[archae_logical]

quote:Originally posted by Hugh

Okay, here we go:

1?Put pressure/legal obligation on LPAs to actually use the PPGs properly, including of coures PPG16, rather than ignoring them when they are inconvenient.

2? DCMS and EH should provide firmer leadership to the LPAs to ensure that they do their jobs right.

3? The balance between heritage and development needs in planning policy;
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.

4? Access to heritage and the position of heritage as a cultural asset in the community;
More money needs to be put into making sites and records accessable, starting with a heritage outreach officer in every SMR/HER office.


5? More permanent sources of funding need to be found, rather than potentially temporary ones such as the Olympics.

The last two need more thinking about
Don't disagree with me too strongly, I'm easily upset [xx(]

Couldn't agree more.
1, 2 and 3.In any other area guidelines are meant to be followed but this seems to be an exception when it comes to planning.

4 and 5. Governments always seem to talk about lack of funds but can always find money for what they want to do.(now where have I heard that before)

E

[kevin wooldridge]

2? The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage and other relevant organisations in representing heritage interests inside and outside Government;

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.

[mercenary]

Having them try to implement some of the APPAG recomendations should pretty much cover it. I was overjoyed when that came out and have since seen almost no movement at all, making me even more cynical about the gulf between talk and action on heritage issues.

[Post-Med Potterer]

I think it is inevitable that the NT and EH will remain as separate bodies.

The National Trust is a registered charity, independent of the government. It has its own board of trustees and is funded by donations, memberships, bequests and other fundraising activities. Its mission is acquisition and protection of threatened coastline, countryside and buildings.

English Heritage is properly known as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, and was established in 1984 by Act of Parliament. It is a statutory instrument of government under the aegis of the Department for Culture Media and Sport. It acts as the government's advisor on heritage matters, and implements policy on heritage as decided by the DCMS.

Joint membership for the public is never going to happen. However a scheme of 'join one get membership of the other for a discount' is probably do-able if there is the political will within the two bodies. 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.

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge

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.

Here, here! I would much rather that EH concentrated on its core role of protection and study of national heritage rather than promotion of events and scenic castles. In recent years, I have gained the distinct impression 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.

On your other point, there is a democratic process for election to the board of the NT. You get yourself proposed by (not sure how many) other members and stand at the AGM. To be fair, it does seem to be dominated by extremists from either end of the conservation and countryside spectrum but I don't think that 'normal' people are excluded. EH on the other hand is a QUANGO and appoints who it likes.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the IFA

[star-nosed mole]

Wow, what an interesting topic! Speaking from a personal view (although this may be influenced by my position within EH), here we go:

1. Re-working of scheduled and listing proceedures and rules - this is already taking place within the Heritage Protection Review. Removing ridiculous class consent allowing ploughing to continue on scheduled monuments.
Definately need to implement the recommendations of APPAG.

2. Interesting suggestion Hugh to reform RCHME - if only! But EH does need to put more of its resources into earthwork surveys, architectural surveys and research into the state of the historic environment - no-one else will do it.

3. Review of PPG16 badly overdue.

4. Definately 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?)

5. The Olymipics 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 goverment department (we are closely linked to ODPM, DEFRA etc too). Olympics may mean more money in terms of commercial contracts however.

I'm sure there's more but just some very quick thoughts...

[BAJR Host]

Here is a draft.... please read and comment... and edit or whatever...



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 2500 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, Govt 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 FSAScot 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) Re-work scheduled monument legislation to remove the loopholes and exemptions. Perhaps create a new type of designation which has the power to stop ploughing on a site. Also remove or re-vamp the now outdated and mostly obsolete AAI section.

b) Put pressure/legal obligation on LPAs to actually use the PPGs properly, including of courses PPG16, rather than ignoring them when they are inconvenient.

c) 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 if possible. 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 ?1000 for breach of conditions can be seen as ?cheaper? than actually having archaeological investigation

d) Try to implement some of the APPAG recommendations should pretty much cover it. 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.

e) Re-working of scheduled and listing procedures and rules - this is already taking place within the Heritage Protection Review. Removing ridiculous class consent which is still allowing ploughing to continue on scheduled monuments.

f) 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) The RCHME should be reformed if EH is going to continue to be turned into a government body so that monument surveys etc can become more plentiful to assist in the monitoring of the survival of them.

b) DCMS and EH should provide firmer leadership to the LPAs to ensure that they do their jobs right.

c) 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 does need to put more of its resources into earthwork surveys, architectural surveys and research into the state of the historic environment - no-one else will do it.

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 when EH say a site is nationally important (maybe a 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 a step forward but the problem arises when the steps do not move with the conditions that it created. 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) are 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 3 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. With help we could bring the past to life and use 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 always seem to talk about lack of funds but can always find money for what they want to do.

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 so there should be as much private funding of it from these areas as possible, remind them of partnerships.

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; and

a) I thought EH's role was protector of heritage 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) You have the answer as to the number of professionals with conservation skills but to my mind you can never have too many. Conservation should play an important part in planning decisions. There probably 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.




Another day another WSI?

[BAJR Host]

last chance to comment..... my grammer and editing skills are not what they used to be

So if you want BAJR (in our name) to post this to DCMS.... you have 4 days to comment

link : to pdf version


http://www.bajr.org/documents/dcms.pdf

Another day another WSI?

[archae_logical]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

last chance to comment..... my grammer and editing skills are not what they used to be

So if you want BAJR (in our name) to post this to DCMS.... you have 4 days to comment
link : to pdf version

http://www.bajr.org/documents/dcms.pdf

Another day another WSI?

The summary is fine but if the rest is being sent it needs editing. I can do it in word and email to you if you have no other offers to edit it. :face-thinks:

E