Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
16th January 2006, 01:13 PM
Curator Kid said,
"I think you'd find as well that in a lot of cases, the amount of work per district wouldn't be enough to justify employing a full-time archaeologist."
The BAJR list of curators has 48 curators in County Organisations and 40 in other authourities. It includes one contracted out service for five Districts contracted to another District authourity - Reading City Council.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
16th January 2006, 01:22 PM
The last IFA Profiling the Profession (2002/03 stats, I believe), has 70 people listing themselves as County or DC archaeologists, based in planning authorites. (At least this number is what I have written in some teaching notes - it's been over a year since I read it).
Taken at face value, does that not suggest a decrease of 22 jobs (31%)? I would be hard pressed to agree that the work load has decreased by a similar percentage.
ML
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
16th January 2006, 01:47 PM
I haven't checked, but I suspect that the 70 in 'profiling the profession' did not distinguish between types of authority - so the 48 in counties and 40 in other authorities suggested by Peter Wardle would represent an increase of 18, not a reduction of 22 as suggested by Monitor Lizard.
I'm inclined to agree with Curator Kid that these things are best dealt with at County level. That imposes a certain consistency of approach over large areas, and allows at least the potential for greater resources to be available and for economies of scale. For users, it also means that the number of different sources of information to be consulted is limited.
I would suggest that, if designations and their administration are to be unified, then the ones now dealt with at District level should be passed upstairs to the County.
There are horrible difficulties, of course, caused by the mishmash that is our system of local government, meaning that it is impossible to set up a consistent system for archaeological curators across the country. We have two-tier areas with County and Districts, former Metropolitan counties now single-tier Metropolitan Districts (sometimes with Joint Strategic Services organisations), and newer Unitary authorities. The whole mess was created by the Tories, but the present government haven't helped with their half-assed, often abortive attempts at reform.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
16th January 2006, 03:44 PM
I think we have to look at what is a logical planning unit. The Tories cannot be blamed for the current mess. This constituted a large block on my TCP course.
In Scotland there is a logical system with an authourity being a city and a hinterland to an extent.
In England there are a variety of authouroties. The bottom line is that the archaeologists need to be in there with the decision makers in any event.
I say we need two levels of advice -
local in the LPA - why is below ground archaeology different to buildings
regional - to give strategic advice on archaeological matters.
In my view County Authourities should be abolished (sorry chaps nothing against archaeologists").
On my calculation there is a net increase in the number of curators which is surely a good thing.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
16th January 2006, 05:52 PM
Quote:quote:On my calculation there is a net increase in the number of curators which is surely a good thing.
Only if they are actually resourced - which is not likely in many cases.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
17th January 2006, 12:51 AM
And don't forget National Parks have their own planning system
E
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
20th January 2006, 03:12 PM
Counties vs Unitaries?. It really depends on where you are. The county structure has its benefits in certain circumstances. In my (admittedly limited) experience most district / unitary authorities are only willing to stump up the cash for one full time professional archaeologist (if that). It means they can put a tick the box that says the LPA shows commitment to their UDP policies on the historic environment. You tend to get an all-singing-all-dancing unitary authority archaeologist who has to cover development control, utilities, agri-environment schemes, updating/enhancing the SMR, writing service policy? the list goes on.
County teams allow the pooling of resources ? and division of labour. For example you may have in your county four LPAs - perhaps one major urban centre and three districts of a less-urban nature inter-dispersed with nice bits of green belt. Development pressure in the former is likely to be higher and the archaeology more complex (depending). If you have four archaeologists working centrally, as opposed to one in each district LPA, resources can be allocated where they are needed ? maybe 1.5 people covering busier urban centres, 0.5 people doing agri-environment and utilities, 1 for the ?quieter? districts and 1 for the SMR. Also you only need one set of service policy documents / briefs etc. (enhances joined-up thinking and consistency of approach I think), one computer system etc. Of course this all falls down in cases where your ?county? covers 2 or even 3 large urban centres with masses of brownfield / urban fringe development ? In these cases you really do need two people covering what is still, in many areas, a job being done by one person.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th January 2006, 04:45 PM
Right.... I am in desparate need of a list of LPAs that intend to cutback...
Then we can lobby at a national level and pressure politicians to take the provision of an adequate service seriously. If Local Govt is seeing shortfalls in budgets.. guess who will be first... UNLESS... we can show with facts and figures the positive benefits that are acheived by having a robust heritage service.
ie.... community wellbeing...
or adequate advice for developers during a p[eriod of increased house building... but perhaps most importantly a need to make it a voting issue... support heritage or lose votes..
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
20th January 2006, 10:33 PM
Interesting topic. The country is heading full steam towards a Mega depression, and archaeology is an easy target. Not made any easier by our disorganised/disjointed professional body. Hats off again to BAJR for requesting a list of counties etc, but shouldn't the IFA be doing this??
County units are brillant, long may they continue. A development tax maybe the way forward, based upon the size of development/value/archaeology. Said tax could then be put into a central pot and administrated by a body - IFA, EH???
Only my views :face-thinks:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th January 2006, 11:05 PM
WEll the IFA might...but if they are...we don't know... I will be talking to them, CBA and REscue.. to amke sure the message is not dilluted by us all doing it separately...
I am however preparing a personal letter to Tony Blair.. (yeah yeah...!) but why not start at the top and work your way down!
Hopw to have a reply next week.
Another day another WSI?
