Northants

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by PetethedigLook on the good side of this, it could be the spark that ignites the comeback of amateur archaeology! Lets face it the way that local councils are going this will become a more viable option for many in the years ahead.

Unfortunately the absolute reverse is likely to be the case. The staff of many local authority based units are often the mainstays of the non-professional archaeological scene in towns, cities and counties. When the local unit goes, it is often very difficult for local non-pros to maintain the profile of local based archaeology. Not helped of course by the fact that many local authority elected members seem of the opinion that by 'closing archaeology' down, it somehow dissapears from the agenda.

I have no close ties with the Northants Unit, but do feel that if they go (and maybe, as is rumoured, other local authority units based not a million miles away) it will be a sad day for all UK archaeologists, both professional and non-professional.

[the invisible man]

The sooner there is some statutory requirement for planning related archs, the upkeep of SMR's and so on the better.

Pete, I fail to see how an amateur body, or individual, could remotely begin to fulfil such a role.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[Curator Kid]

From the Northamptonshire Archaeological Society's Newsletter: -

"COUNTY COUNCIL AXES HERITAGE SERVICE

NAS members will recall that a NASNEWS newsflash went out earlier this year to highlight Northamptonshire County Council's proposed closure of its historic environment service. Sadly NAS understands that the County Council has confirmed that as part of its restructuring which followed its earlier budget announcements, its Built and Natural Environment service, which includes the Historic Environment Team (formerly known as Northamptonshire Heritage), closed at the end of March 2006.

Most of the existing posts, including the Team Leader (previously referred to as the County Archaeologist), Historic Environment and Conservation officers have been axed. Fortunately, the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) will continue to be maintained by NCC but will in future be managed by Northamptonshire Record Office. As an externally funded post, the Northamptonshire Finds Liaison Officer post will be largely unaffected and will continue with its recording of archaeological artifacts found by metal detectorists and members of the public. These changes involve only the County Council?s historic environment ?curatorial? service not the archaeological field unit ?Northamptonshire Archaeology? which will continue to operate as normal. Two new historic environment posts are being created but these will only be concerned with the County Council?s strategic planning and work on management of its heritage assets. The County Council intends in future to focus its resources on its core strategic priorities and have a much less active role with Northamptonshire?s historic environment. The services which it has previously provided are not statutory and as a result the County Council will no longer provide these.

The role fulfilled by the now defunct team included provision of archaeological advice and guidance to the local District and Borough authorities, developers, land ownners and members of the public on planning applications across the county - in line with Government advice. They also set standards for the conduct of archaeological fieldwork undertaken by the myriad of archaeological contractors that operate in the county as well as monitoring their work. Other services included wide ranging advice and guidance to local councils, other organistions and individuals on everything ranging from the impact of new tree planting schemes to the care of care of individual monuments, historic buildings and landscapes.

NAS is finding it difficult to establish which planning and management advice roles will be maintained by the County Council and which may be picked up by the District and Borough councils. Without such input there will be no means to assess and where appropriate mitigate the impact of new development proposals on archaeology and related heritage. The absence of clearly defined responsibility for such work could be a recipe for disaster with archaeological sites and monuments potentially put at risk of damage or destruction from new development. NAS would encourage members to contact the County Council, West Northamptonshire Development Corporation and their local District and Borough councils to seek assurance that effective measures will be put in place to ensure that their local heritage is taken into account when planning applications are being considered. The extensive new growth planned across the Northamptonshire makes this more important than ever. Without adequate safeguards, the county?s archaeological heritage may be in serious danger of sliding into the situation we witnessed before the 1970?s with local authorities unable or unwilling to stop the destruction of our past in the face of new development."



This is bad news, and I fear it's the first of many. :face-confused:

[beamo]

KW wrote

I have no close ties with the Northants Unit, but do feel that if they go (and maybe, as is rumoured, other local authority units based not a million miles away) it will be a sad day for all UK archaeologists, both professional and non-professional.

This is a reasonable comment and I might agree with it, but it is not the unit that is under threat - as the comments produced in this thread make clear, Northamptonshire Archaeology is not linked to these cuts and will continue to operate as normal.

The key losses from an archaeology perspective will be that of development control and the SMR. The latter is to be taken on by the County Record Office - whether this works remains to be seen - but the former will be cut altogether. This means that the districts (the local planning authorities) will have no-one to turn to for advice on archaeology and development control.

I am already aware of one current excavation that has just been 'monitored' by a district council Conservation Officer who freely admitted that they had never been to an excavation before but were looking forward to seeing some pottery !

This puts us all back into the debate that we often have on here regarding standards, and how it is curators that are in the most obvious position to enforce and uphold them, and to report bad practice. How is this ever going to happen if the curators are not actually archaeologists themselves ?

We all need to become involved in this issue now - if it can happen in one county then it can happen in others as well. EH, IFA, CBA etc need to act urgently and ask the districts here how they are going to able to ensure that applications are in line with PPG16. Some developers will see this as a green light to submit information that merely states that the proposal is in line with PPG16 and hope that they will not be pulled up.

This is not an issue regarding whether or not there is a place for county-based units - it is a fundamental issue regarding who assesses the requirements and methodologies for mitigation.

I have stated previously on this site that what we need to improve the current system is more and better-paid curators (i.e. several per county, earning at least twice their current rate in order to attract experienced people). And before anyone asks, no I am not, or have ever been, or desire to be, a curator. I have worked with many, good, bad and indifferent, but see their role as absolutely central to the system and feel that this is where we should be concentrating our efforts.


Beamo

[Curator Kid]

I am also left wondering how Northants County Council think their retained Archaeological Unit will remain a viable business proposition if no-one is around to recommend archaeological planning conditions in the County.

Beamo, your comment about the Conservation Officer monitoring an excavation is exactly the kind of issue we should be highlighting. Current thinking from Government indicates that archaeology and the rest of the historic environment need to be considered together as integral to one another. This is fine and dandy, but frankly, all I see in the process is the importance of archaeology being sidelined and subsumed by the so-called "visible" heritage. It is clear to us as archaeologists that Conservation Officers are not the correct people to recommend and monitor archaeological works, because it is not their area of expertise, but others seem to think that this type of arrangement "will do". It's time to start objecting to this viewpoint forcefully and emphasising the importance of archaeology as a resource in its own right, otherwise what's happened in Northants will spread.

[1man1desk]

I find this development horrifying. Curatorial/Development Control services in County Councils (or other authorities) are the bedrock of archaeological protection in England, and provide the essential precondition for the proper operation of PPG16. They should be seen as the irreducible core of any Council's archaeology provision, not as the first target for cuts.

The field unit is not an essential service at all - it could quite easily be hived off as a separate entity. The difference, of course, is that the field unit is self-funding (and probably actually makes money for the council), whereas the curatorial service cannot make money by definition.

What may happen here, of course, is that the SMR officer (relocated in the Record Office) will find themselves doing the County Archaeologist's job as well, without the pay, recognition or influence to do it properly, and will be unable to keep up with the SMR job because of the demands of DC work.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

Much confusion is ensuing

Beomo, can you email me or phone (off the record completely-!!) about the site with the conservation officer

Another day another WSI?

[geodan]

Curator Kids point echoes one I made during a conversation at work a number of weeks ago regarding the shortsightedness of Northants CC retaining a currently profit making unit while massively rationalising the organisation that creates the need for its services.

My understanding is that two people from the Heritage Environment Team are being retained although their role will be restricted to large scale County wide development issues. They will no longer provide advice on development control issues to Northamptonshires District Councils.

Given that District Councils budgets will likely have been allocated for the coming year at least, PPG 16 seems to have gone down the pan in Northants.

Another issue along the same lines - I'm not sure of the exact situation, but as far as I'm aware Hert's County Archaeologist was replaced earlier this year/late last year, by a lower grade and therefore cheaper Conservation Officer lacking any archaeological background.

[mercenary]

I'm sure this rot is going to spread. I recently attended a consultation exercise held by the County Council in my own county. Ostensibly this was to identify the core functions of the archaeological arm of the council to make provision of them more efficient. The consensus reached was that the service was both essential and needed to be beefed up to meet a rapidly expanding workload.

You could see from the barely hidden dismay displayed by the council officials (not curators I hasten to point out) running the exercise that this was the last thing they wanted to hear. This led me to conclude that they were hoping to axe every single part that they could get away with. It left me feeling quite soiled that I had taken part in such a blatant sham of an exercise, and possibly contributed to their 'consultation exercise' and eventual demolition of the curatorial arm.

We need to fight it with everything we have. Thornborough protesters where are you?

[BAJR Host]

I agree about the slow erosion..... lose a skirmish here and there... and soon the war is lost...

PPG16 talks about "County Archaeological Officer or equivalent" must be consulted... now by any stretch the equivalent can't mean a person who has no or little experience in archaeology..... thats not very equivalent

Another day another WSI?