Thanks Mike
Sue is a real star!
best wishes
Victoria
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mike Shaw
Sent: 18 April 2008 10:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: Heritage Protection - the elephant in the room
I am forwarding some comments from Sue Whitehouse, one of the few Conservation Officers actually willing to participate in the debate over statutory HERs.
Mike
________________________________
From: Sue Whitehouse
Sent: Fri 18/04/2008 09:50
To: Mike Shaw
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Heritage Protection - the elephant in the room
Mike
Don't know if you are feeding any of my comments into the debate but here are my observations on the latest offering
2. I don't think it is woolly really.The cost benefit analysis undertaken last year into the provision of statutory HERs came to the conclusion that the status quo was the best option rather than imposing a different regime - so the Bill is in effect saying business as usual chaps but where new unitaries are being created and an old county is being split there is provision for joint working. This part of the Bill could be clarified by direct reference to Unitary authorities.
3. I am surprised that including conservation areas (of any kind), registered parks or Local List buildings should be considered an issue for HERs. I though this should be standard practice anyway. I note that CAs are excluded from the list of things that should be in a HER but hope this was just an oversight and will be added later. The concept of the archaeological CA is new although it has always be possible to include important archaeological sites in CAs and archaeology should be an issue addressed in any appraisal. I suspect this is another area where EH will need to review their guidance. The issue of buildings and curtlages is something the archaeologists will need to talk to the conservation officers about. On our planning GIS we have buildings, curtilages and a buffer zone around each listed structure. This is an issue the FISH folk should be taking up especially as we will need to ensure consistency between planning GIS systems and HERs.
4. Many local authorities do have established criteria for local lists if they have one (this isn't new as it is already established practice although not statutory)) - the challenge for many will be establishing criteria for archaeological sites of special local interest and the need for districts without archaeologists to liaise with archaeologists at county level to make this happen. Lots of bridge building will be required in some areas where relationships are poor. Also note that all of this information will HAVE TO BE on planning GIS systems too so there will be a need for close liaison between HERs and those who manage corporate GIS systems.
5. Archaeologists should note that planning information systems already have to deal with keeping records of LBC and planning permissions which go back to the 1940s in some cases depending on the efficiency of the systems each authority operates. The issue in not that HERs need to contain histories of consents - they need to be able to network with local authority planning managment systems but the HER will be the repository for more detailed information derived from any interventions. Dare I say - the HER should just be one of may databases linked to the corporate GIS of each local authority in a given area.
6. This is no surprise surely!
7. The resource implications are considerable but everyone has been avoiding facing up to this because if anyone really worked out how much it will really cost then statutory status would never have made it into the Bill
Sue
________________________________
From: Mike Shaw
Sent: 17 April 2008 15:35
To: Sue Whitehouse
Subject: FW: Heritage Protection - the elephant in the room
________________________________
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records on behalf of Robinson Ben
Sent: Thu 17/04/2008 15:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heritage Protection - the elephant in the room
Hello there Victoria,
You may find that folk are still digesting it all! There was a very useful ALGAO England meeting in London yesterday, at which some of the relevant clauses in the draft Bill were discussed. Just some quick lunchtime HER thoughts from me, for what they are worth:
1. Guidance on statutory HERs will be published in early May. This will no doubt describe the provisions that HERs will need to have in order to comply with statutory requirements. Thereafter, it seems that the new Act will be supported by all manner of supplementary guidance on various aspects (i.e. designation criteria, management agreements, etc.). I expect it to be like the 1979 Act in this respect - strongly supported (shored up?) by at least 30 years worth of evolving guidance!
2. There is some apparent wooliness in the Draft Bill regarding where HERs should sit. County Councils, national parks, and single tier districts, city boroughs, etc. (i.e. generally equates to 'Unitary' and higher tier authorities) will be required to maintain HER, second tier authorities will not. Although there is scope for local arrangements, joint agreements, etc. Again, the May guidance may help to sort this out.
3. The official Register of Heritage Assets will be compiled and maintained by EH, but then provided to LPAs and HERs, which then have a responsibility to disseminate information when asked. This implies a greater need for consistency, accuracy and up-to-dateness, in sharing information between national and local authorities. This implies that HER structures must be capable of supporting the crucial aspects of the data structure of the 'Register'. They will need to support 'archaeological conservation areas' (a hitherto unmentioned designation) and sites of 'special local interest', along with the parks, gardens, battlefields, open spaces, buildings and curtilages, etc. I think spatial standards are going to be really crucial here.
4. LAs will have to come up with robust criteria for defining sites of 'special local interest'. Intended designations have to be notified to landowners, along with amendments such as changes in extent etc. Owners can appeal. We will not be able to just put something on the HER and call it 'special'. I think it is only a matter of time before the various classes of 'asset' 'Registered', 'Special Local Interest', 'Registerable but not Registered or of special local interest' (i.e. most HER stuff), are used to inform/dictate planning and conservation responses. I can envisage arguments about whether sites that have not been designated should be subject to pre-determination evaluation, for example. The pressure will be on to get sites registered in order to protect them from undesirable actions.
5. With regard to management of information about 'assets'; given that class consents can be issued (not by LAs, but by EH), specific consents issued (by LAs and EH), and individually customised management agreements can be created for each asset or group of assets (between LAs and owners/operators), and people can obtain 5 year certificates of immunity from Registration, I think that the will be a great need to ensure that the histories of consents and consultations are recorded accurately and comprehensive along with the more physical aspects of the asset information. Listed Buildings, for example, very often have much more complex histories of consent, alteration, etc. (i.e. big files in big filing cabinets) than Scheduled Monuments. These are crucial to casework. Some Conservation Officers have expressed concern that HERs will not cope well with this requirement.
6. Those HERs who are responsible for serving several planning authorities will have to make sure that the HER info is all available when needed - probably along with its accompanying specialist advice for those disciplines not represented in the recipient LPAs. The Bill places some responsibility on LPAs who do not maintain HERs to use HER information (and I suppose this will be mirrored in forthcoming planning guidance eventually), but the mechanisms for this, or the relative burden of responsibility, are not yet defined. Nevertheless, I think that that the terms of the Bill will be helpful in securing service levels agreements, or other financial support.
7. My overall impression is that the long overdue and welcome fully statutory status for HERs brings with it considerable obligations to tighten up recording practice, standards and service delivery in certain areas. Some (?!) of the resource implications have been identified in the regulatory Impact Statement.
Cheers,
Ben Robinson
________________________________
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bryant, Victoria (ACS, Archaeology Unit)
Sent: 17 April 2008 13:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Heritage Protection - the elephant in the room
Dear All
I have had no response to my request for thoughts/concerns etc on the practical implications of the Bill on our jobs (see below in red). It would seem to me that whilst the Bill is "a good thing" there are implications for HERs which we will have to start thinking about now because it take years to set up systems and guidelines. The Bill will be modified but I get no impression that its going to be rewritten or junked - am I mistaken?
Some issues for us could be
Will Exegisis be commissioned to develop new modules to deal with our new roles?
What about those of us with different software - how do we need to modify it?
For those of us in County HERs how can we develop stronger links with Conservation officers in Districts?
What kind of guidance/lead will English Heritage be providing?
Anyone got any ideas about how we decide what archaeological sites are of "special local interest" with everything that entails.
Victoria
"I know that most of our comments on the proposed legislation will be fed through ALGAO but I would be very grateful to hear from any one who has started the process of addressing the practical issues raised by the Bill. For instance what do you think about
necessary changes to software
new relationships with conservation officers including data transfer and access
staffing implications of increased bureaucracy at least in the early days"
Victoria
Victoria Bryant MA MIFA
Historic Environment Record Manager
Worcestershire Historic Environment and Archaeology Service
**********************************************************************
Confidentiality Notice
This message and any attachments are private and confidential and may
be subject to legal privilege and copyright. If you are not the
intended recipient please do not publish or copy it to anyone else.
Please contact us by using the reply facility in your email software
and then remove it from your system.
Disclaimer
Although this email and attachments have been scanned for viruses and
malware, Worcestershire County Council accepts no liability for any
loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this communication.
Monitoring of Email
Worcestershire County Council may monitor traffic data and the content
of email for lawful business purposes.
**********************************************************************
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of any individual or entity to whom they are addressed. However, the information may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the Information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed. All e-mail sent to or from this address will be processed by Peterborough City Council's Corporate E-mail system. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately by using the e-mail address or telephone +44 (0) 1733 747474 -Growing the right way for a bigger, better Peterborough. www.peterborough.gov.uk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This email and files transmitted are
confidential and are intended solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to
the intended recipient, you may not copy, disclose,
distribute or use it in any unauthorised manner. If you
have received this email in error please notify us by
email to [log in to unmask] and then delete
it and any attachments accompanying it. Please note that
Wolverhampton City Council cannot guarantee that this
message or any attachments are virus free or have not been
intercepted and amended.
Any views or opinions expressed within this email are
those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those
of Wolverhampton City Council and no contractual
arrangement is intended to arise from this communication.
==============================================================================
|