In Northamptonshire County Council the long standing SMR/HER officer has recently been made redundant as part of the cost cutting exercise and I understand that temporary staff are now carrying out this role. She was the last person of what was once a large heritage service which in recent times had been placed under the control of the County Record Office. Now it appears that the Record Office and the County Library Services are to be part of a newly created "Wellbeing Community Interest Company" which has been jointly created by Northants County Council. Northants Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Northampton and which is planned to be running before the end of the year. Whether this is privatisation or not is a moot point. What it will mean is that the HER and the CC. Archaeology Planning Officer will be in two separate organisations which may or may not make any difference to the synergy between these two elements. Whether the district councils will have to pay the Wellbeing CIC for maintaining their data is unknown (getting any information about the CIC is very difficult) but I suspect that the HER will have robust charging policy for everybody as they will be competing with healthcare, libraries and  sport for funding within this new organisation. I understand that this is intended be one of the most ambitious Community Interest Companies yet established in this country, the others being comparatively small. No doubt other county councils will be looking to see how well this works and whether such a route could be applied to some of their services.

On 28 July 2015 at 12:38, Iles, Peter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
As part of a proposal - apparently since dropped - to allow councils to set their own planning fees rather than rely on a national standard of what it 'should' cost, we were one of the planning authorities that went through the exercise of trying to identify all of the costs of dealing with planning applications (the survey was called PAS).  We included the costs of providing specialist advice on roads, ecology, heritage etc.

The outcome of this was that the cost of dealing with an application varied wildly, and depended as much upon the adequacy or otherwise of the supporting documentation as on the scale and type of the application itself.  It averaged out as considerably more expensive than the national fee levels.

The problem was that if you just accepted what a developer said, you could deal with applications quickly and cheaply, but if you actually read the material submitted and insisted that it reach an acceptable minimum standard and addressed all the issues, it could take a lot of officer time and require delays in the process whilst further information was obtained and submitted - leading to complaints.  People say that this should be dealt with before an application is validated, but the admin staff who have to do the validation cannot be expected to critically assess reports on all types of issues - from bat surveys to sewer systems - before accepting them and passing them to specialists.




Peter Iles
Specialist Advisory Services

Lancashire County Council
Development Management
PO Box 100
County Hall
Preston
PR1 0LD

t.01772 531550
e. [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hopkins, David (ENV)
Sent: 28 July 2015 11:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Archaeology, Austerity and Historic Environment Records

I have recently been looking into the background to planning fees. It would appear to me that the cost of these services should be identified and accommodated within the government's assessment of planning fees. The main thrust of the CLG 2010 report on Planning Costs and Fees is that planning authorities under estimate the cost of the development management system as they don’t fully recognise and account for the over head costs, including services bought in from other planning authorities or consultants. I suspect that the cost of specialist input such as ours falls into this category. Not recognised as core planning by LPAs, not submitted to CIPFA and so not reflected in the calculation of planning fees.

DCLG circular 04/2008 “Planning fees were introduced in 1981, with the intention that users and potential beneficiaries of the planning system, rather than tax payers in general, meet the costs incurred by planning authorities in deciding planning applications”.

Reading the two together government intends the applicant and beneficiaries pay for the planning system not the general tax payer, through planning fees, but LPAs are not (according to the 2010 report) fully recognising those costs. We should be beneficiaries of the planning fee not continue to be a burden on the general tax payer.

But how to take that argument forward when it appears that the planning system still does not seem to fully acknowledge the duties placed on it by This Common Inheritance 1990 to delivered environmental protection through the planning system.

A few thoughts

David


David Hopkins
County Archaeologist
Economy, Transport and Environment Department Elizabeth II Court West, The Castle, Winchester SO23 8UD

Email [log in to unmask]
01962 832339


-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Iles, Peter
Sent: 28 July 2015 10:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Archaeology, Austerity and Historic Environment Records

Whilst I agree with much that Chris says, there is a danger with 'shared' services, in that there is a constant battle to keep everyone on board and funding up to scratch.  LCC has 14 unitary and borough councils, plus the county, and at present we offer a DC service to the county planning department and 12 of the 14 others.  It has been a struggle every year to get the others to sign up to the service, despite a massive subsidy to the costs from the county - at present the total income from the other councils is  about half the cost of running the DC archaeologist post.  Given financial constraints this subsidy can't continue indefinitely and, given this difficulty, the recent loss of the DC archaeologist to a commercial contractor (I've now got that job plus my other work) and my imminent departure (1st April 2016), the potential end of the road for DC archaeology in the county is looming.

We are working to get something into place, but I'm not particularly confident that we'll succeed.

There is a very real threat that the county will pull back to fulfilling its own responsibilities under the NPPF and asking the other councils to make their own provision, with access to the HER charged at cost for any consultant working on their behalf.  The response to this by the other councils will vary from attempts to buy in the service (at a commercial cost) from outside contractors by one or two of them, to a 'we can't afford it and anyway no-one cares/can force us' attitude - currently demonstrated by the two that don't currently have any provision.

As I've stated to anyone who will listen to me, we appear to need a high profile case where a council is made an example of and suffers huge costs because of its lack of provision - a new Rose Theatre event where the costs fall on the council or a high profile 'prosecution'/appeal/ombudsman case were again lots of costs fall on the council for not fulfilling the terms of NPPF.

Unfortunately given the current anti-planners spin we are all suffering from it's going to have to be a big, big case and not just some local difficulty before central gov't will take note and push councils into fulfilling their obligations.

Peter Iles
Specialist Advisory Services

Lancashire County Council
Development Management
PO Box 100
County Hall
Preston
PR1 0LD

t.01772 531550
e. [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Wardle
Sent: 28 July 2015 09:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Archaeology, Austerity and Historic Environment Records

Like Vince I am not far off retirement, so am less concerned about my long term prospects than are many others.

Much of what Dan Hinks says makes good sense: Planning departments are never going to regard public access to the information they hold as a high priority and I am sure that many HERs, including the one I am currently responsible for, would benefit from a higher profile.  But Dan does not know enough about the workings of local government. For several decades museums and libraries and to a lesser extent record offices have been seen as an easy target for savings when budgets are tight. To remove those HERs which currently lie within a planning services and place them in a museum and/or library services would be to label them as targets for budget cuts.

Equally, however, those of us in local government can't necessarily assume that what applies now will continue to be the case over the next couple of decades: I used to work in Staffordshire and was shocked when, a few years ago, one of the districts in Staffordshire started to share the management of its planning service with an adjoining district in Derbyshire. I suspect that if the current economic climate continues for more than a few years that we will see many more local authorities sharing planning services and, if that happens, there are likely to be discussions about the provision of archaeological advise. Don't forget too that the current government is actively encouraging the myth that all the blame for are current housing crisis rests with local government planning department (In fact, the bulk of the actual blame lies in the greed on the behalf of those who hold the land and those who control the money that runs the system.). I think there is a good chance that once local authorities have exhausted the savings that can be made in library and museum budgets that planning departments with increasingly find themselves in the firing line.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vince Russett
Sent: 27 July 2015 11:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Archaeology, Austerity and Historic Environment Records

Morning, chums!

As retirement beckons, I am able to stand back and take a slightly more disinterested look at this.

The problem in dealing with planning issues is that many sites need to be visited (even Street View doesn't show everywhere - although it helps!) If we are dealing with multiple county records, some sites may be so remote that they are simply not visited. It's easy enough dealing with a little area like North Somerset, but how Devon (or the Highlands!) manage, I can't imagine. I still find people who are not even aware of the HER (or irritatingly, refer to it as the 'Somerset HER' which is a very different beast). I have thought in the past that having museum, library and HER altogether would have benefits of scale, and the Wiltshire model seems to work - although because it is an archive, it's always cold.

After a long fight to retain our paperwork (solved by the sheer bloody-mindedness of my HER officer Dan) we have now been given a new office (with windows, carpets and gasp! a kettle). This retaining is probably going to be a constant struggle against those who don't realise that the HER is both digital *and* paper, and although the intention is to ensure that the latter is digitised, we don't have the time or resources to finish that job.

The local studies library is now in the same building as us (which helps), so unfortunately are other public services, which means in this entirely open-plan building, there is a constant racket of babies crying, people shouting and occasionally even dogs barking. It's a terrible work environment.

Vince

Vince Russett
County Archaeologist
Development Management Group
North Somerset Council


Our Historic Environment Record is now on-line: Go to the North Somerset web site (http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk) then use the tabs Environment / Conservation / Archaeology/ Historic Environment Record. Enjoy! Please note the change in my landline AND my mobile numbers.

Landline: 01934 426256
Mobile:    07795812240

Please note my work hours are usually 8am to 4pm


-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Insole
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 10:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Archaeology, Austerity and Historic Environment Records

From our experience the HER is most valuable if it is sitting within the planning department with the planning archaeologist, but working in close partnership with museums, archives and preferably universities. This is due to several factors the most crucial being to enable the most rapid responses to planning proposals at any stage.

The way HERs look at the world spatially is also a better fit with planning disciplines. None of our museum or record office collections use GIS for example and spatial references in museum catalogues refer to precise shelf locations of the archive box.

Partnership working is going to become more and more important given the austerity agenda. Working together with museums, record offices, universities and communities will enable the optimal/efficient sharing of skills, help to raise the profile of heritage and demonstrate the value of heritage to a wider audience. Whether this is through Heritage Gateway on a national scale or through local initiatives (in an ideal world it should be both) will come down to individual authority priorities.

Best wishes,

Peter Insole
Principal Historic Environment Officer
City Design Group (Urban Design)
Planning Division
Place Directorate
Brunel House
St.George’s Road
Bristol
BS1 5UY

www.bristol.gov.uk/citydesigngroup
www.bristol.gov.uk/knowyourplace

Tel: 0117 9223033

This e-mail is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or organisation to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed (including those contained within any attachments) represent an informal opinion of an officer of the City Council and are not binding on the Local Planning Authority. If you are not the intended recipient and you have received this e-mail in error you must take no action based on it. Please delete/destroy and inform the sender immediately.




-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Shaw
Sent: 27 July 2015 09:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Archaeology, Austerity and Historic Environment Records

The question of where local Historic Environment Records should be placed is a difficult one.  On the one hand a home within a Museum or Cultural Heritage Sector, particularly perhaps Record Offices, would have the advantages of encouraging wider access to HERs and greater community use, on the other it has been my, and I suspect many others', experience that when housed within planning services HERs and local authority archaeologists tend to be listened to more readily than when giving advice at arm's length. I'm not sure what the answer to this is though changes within local government may mean that HERs , like so many other services will become increasingly arms length in any case. I suspect that services related to planning will remain better resourced than those relating to culture/museums though conversely the latter are perhaps more used to getting grants from outside and will be better able to demonstrate a commitment to wider usage of HERs.
I guess that one answer may be to have the HER and HER Officer housed within say a Record Office, while a Planning Archaeologist is based within the planning service. Rationally a larger HER would benefit from economy of scale but smaller local ones may feel of more relevance to the community.
The creation of larger joint authorities, such as that proposed for the West Midlands, may present an opportunity for the best of both worlds.

Much food for thought!

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Hicks" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:59 AM
Subject: Archaeology, Austerity and Historic Environment Records


Dear all -
Colleagues may find this blog post of interest - http://profdanhicks.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/archaeology-austerity-and-future-of.html

It explores some of the broader significance of HERs as unique, often neglected and overlooked, and highly fragile cultural resources. It argues that we need to improve HERs' national coherence, their public accessibility and profile, and the stability of their future funding -- and that one important part of the way forward may be to build new connections and re-connections between Historic Environment Records and local authority museums.

The BBC broadcast mentioned in the blog post will be on Making History - this Tuesday at 3pm, and then on the iPlayer.

Dan
........................................
Dan Hicks MCIfA, FSA
Associate Professor in Archaeology, University of Oxford Curator, Pitt Rivers Museum Fellow, St Cross College, Oxford http://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/DH1.html
Twitter: https://twitter.com/profdanhicks [Bristol 2015 - European Green Capital – an initiative of the European Commission] <http://www.bristol2015.co.uk>

______________________________________________________________________
Council services online: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/service

Keep up to date with the latest council news and sign up to our monthly email newsletter: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ournews

Have your say on consultations and view our webcasts: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/consult

Keeping in touch
Visit www.n-somerset.gov.uk for information about our services Council Connect: for all streets, open spaces and environmental protection enquiries visit www.n-somerset.gov.uk/connect Care Connect: for all adult social services enquiries visit www.n-somerset.gov.uk/careconnect Out of hours emergencies: 01934 622 669 Privacy and confidentiality notice:

The information contained in this email transmission is intended by North Somerset Council for the use of the named individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise confidential. If you have received this email transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by reply email. Any views expressed within this message or any other associated files are the views and expressions of the individual and not North Somerset Council.  North Somerset Council takes all reasonable precautions to ensure that no viruses are transmitted with any electronic communications sent, however the council can accept no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from the use of this email or any contents or attachments.


Learn something new this autumn with an adult learning course<http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/media/494087/autumn-programme-2015.pdf> .


********************

This e-mail contains information intended for the addressee only.
It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or professional privilege.
If you are not the addressee you are not authorised to disseminate, distribute, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment to it.
The content may be personal or contain personal opinions and unless specifically stated or followed up in writing, the content cannot be taken to form a contract or to be an expression of the County Council's position.
Lancashire County Council reserves the right to monitor all incoming and outgoing email.
Lancashire County Council has taken reasonable steps to ensure that outgoing communications do not contain malicious software and it is your responsibility to carry out any checks on this email before accepting the email and opening attachments.
*** This email, and any attachments, is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender. Any request for disclosure of this document under the Data Protection Act 1998 or Freedom of Information Act 2000 should be referred to the sender. [disclaimer id: HCCStdDisclaimerExt] ***


********************

This e-mail contains information intended for the addressee only.
It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or professional privilege.
If you are not the addressee you are not authorised to disseminate, distribute, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment to it.
The content may be personal or contain personal opinions and unless specifically stated or followed up in writing, the content cannot be taken to form a contract or to be an expression of the County Council's position.
Lancashire County Council reserves the right to monitor all incoming and outgoing email.
Lancashire County Council has taken reasonable steps to ensure that outgoing communications do not contain malicious software and it is your responsibility to carry out any checks on this email before accepting the email and opening attachments.