Championing Archaeological Businesses

Log in
Become a Member

Year: 2011

  • New survey shows archaeological market still subdued

    The first State of the Archaeological Market survey shows a slight increase in the numbers employed in development-led archaeology in the past six months, though still significantly down on the July 2007 peak. Staff turnover was relatively low, with more staff moving between archaeological employers than leaving the profession. Employment contracts remained largely unchanged, but salaries fell in real terms. Average turnover last financial year was slightly up to around £1.2m, with a similar level projected for the current year, mostly through assessments, fieldwork and post-fieldwork analysis. However, profit margins were mainly below 5% and business confidence remains low. Many businesses have established subsidiary offices around the UK, though few plan expansion over the next twelve months. Fieldwork and post-fieldwork skills continue to be lost, and with conservation skills are those most likely to be bought in.

    The new twice-yearly survey, carried out by Landward Research Ltd on behalf of FAME and the IfA, covers the period April-September 2011. It includes data from the EH/ALGAO/IHBC August 2011 report on local government staff resources, but does not take into account job losses in other areas of the sector, such as national heritage agencies, universities or museums. In the 68% of the sector for which we know the data, we have seen the deepest and longest cut in the number of archaeologists since records began.

    The survey builds on the economic analysis carried out by the London School of Economics for the Southport Group, and replaces the quarterly Job Losses survey, which some FAME members found too narrow in scope.

    The response rate was around 50%, with some respondents reluctant to release financial information, even though the results were anonymised. This is the first real attempt to assess the scope of the UK archaeological market, and FAME members are urged to contribute to its success by suggesting improvements to the survey and taking time to respond as fully as possible to the next one in April 2012.

    The full report may be viewed here.

  • FAME responds to draft National Planning Policy Framework

    FAME responds to draft National Planning Policy Framework

    FAME has responded to the draft National Planning Policy Framework by welcoming its objective of delivering sustainable development, but expressing concerns about its degree of protection for undesignated assets, its lack of clarity about the development management process, and its lack of emphasis on the need for specialist expertise.

    Dear Sir

    Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

    I am writing to you on behalf of the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers (FAME), which represents around 50 businesses providing archaeological services to commercial clients in the development industry throughout the UK.

    We welcome the NPPF objective of delivering sustainable development, and acknowledge its intention to simplify and streamline the planning process whilst preserving the highly-effective policies and principles set out in Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

    We welcome its recognition (Paras 177 and 191) of the importance of recording information revealed by development in advancing knowledge and understanding of the past, and of making the results of such work publicly accessible.

    However we do have some concerns about the NPPF as currently drafted.

    Firstly, we feel it places undue emphasis (Paras 183-4) on those designated heritage assets which enjoy statutory protection under existing consent regimes, at the expense of the 95% of heritage assets which are undesignated and depend upon a robust and proportionate planning process for their safeguarding and management. In our view it is these non-statutory undesignated assets that most require strong and unequivocal guidance on assessing their significance and setting and in securing their management through the neighbourhood planning process. The ‘balanced judgement’ advocated in Para 185 represents in our view a weakening of the protection afforded to undesignated heritage assets, as a material consideration in determining applications, currently afforded by PPS5 Policy HE8.1.

    Secondly, it does not in our view set out as clearly as did PPS5 (or indeed PPG16 before it) the process by which planning decisions affecting undesignated heritage assets are reached. The well-established and effective sequence of pre-application consultation and appraisal, pre-determination assessment and evaluation and post-determination investigation and recording, so clearly set out in previous guidance, is not as clearly signposted in the draft framework. In our view it is vital for our clients that they fully understand the decision-making process, in order both to identify any likely risks to development at the earliest possible stage and to manage them through design solutions or mitigation measures.

    Thirdly, whilst making passing reference (176, 178) to the value of the historic environment, we feel that the draft framework significantly understates its potential contribution to place-shaping, regeneration and, indeed, to sustainable growth.

    Fourthly, whilst we welcome its recognition of the need for local planning authorities to have access to accurate and up-to-date historic environment records (37), such a requirement is of little value without the necessary specialist expertise to implement it. The NPPF should make specific reference to the need for access to such specialist advice in neighbourhood planning and development management, similar to that provided by PPS5 Policy HE7.1 (vi). It should also include a clear statement of the need for development-led archaeological investigation to be carried out by suitably-qualified archaeological organisations to nationally-agreed standards.

    Finally, the NPPF will need to be underpinned by clear and detailed guidance, so that planners, practitioners and local communities can interpret the policies set out in it, and practical methodologies may be agreed for its effective day-to-day implementation.

    Yours sincerely

    Adrian Tindall MA FSA MIfA

    Chief Executive, Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers

  • Sandwell Archaeology Service

    Sandwell Archaeology Service

    FAME has raised concern about plans to end the Sandwell Archaeology Service:

    Sandwell-LetterDownload
  • Kent Archaeological Resource Centre

    Kent Archaeological Resource Centre

    FAME’s response to the proposal for a Kent Archaeological Resource Centre:

    Kent-CC-LetterDownload
  • FAME responds to threat to Tees Archaeology

    FAME responds to threat to Tees Archaeology

    FAME has learned that Middlesbrough Council is considering withdrawing its funding from Tees Archaeology, the service which maintains the Historic Environment Record and provides planning advice to the four unitary authorities of Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees. FAME has written to the four local authorities urging them to continue funding the service. The full content of the letters may be viewed here:

    Tees-Archaeology-Middlesborough-1Download
    Tees-Archaeology-Middlesborough-2Download
    Tees-Archaeology-Redcar-Cleveland-2Download
  • Presentations from ‘Trouble in Store’

    Presentations from ‘Trouble in Store’

    This year’s FAME Forum ‘Trouble in Store’ addressed the critical issue of archaeological archives. Given the massive expansion in development-led archaeology in the UK, how are they are to be collected, deposited, stored and used in the future? Over a hundred delegates from FAME, SMA, ALGAO and other organisations attended the event, which was once again held in the magnificent surroundings of the Merchant Taylors Hall in York.

    Archaeological practices and the archives crisis – why the time is right for change

    Roland Smith, Regional Manager, Cotswold Archaeology

    There has been an impending crisis with archaeological archives for several years. For many developer-funded practices that crisis has well and truly arrived. Many now hold substantial volumes of archives with no available museum or store able to receive them. Anecdotally museum storage capacity is worsening, with little prospect of new facilities opening in the foreseeable future. All indicators point to the need for a radical review of all aspects of archive preparation and deposition that does not diminish their importance as valuable assets but accepts the need for significant change. This presentation sets out the perspective of historic environment practices and makes some proposals for change.

    Digital Archives: light at the end of the tunnel?

    Catherine Hardman Deputy Director (Collections), Archaeology Data service

    This paper will describe two recent ADS partnerships in digital archiving. The first, with Southampton Arts and Heritage, requires all fieldwork archives in the city to be deposited with ADS, who then provide long-term archiving and ensure that digital fieldwork data can be made available to the widest possible audience. The second, with Wessex Archaeology and with museums and historic environment services in Hampshire and Wiltshire, has used digital photography as the sole photographic fieldwork record, and led to the creation of an ADS digital photographic archive service, with online access to digital images through OASIS.

    Allocation and preservation of archaeological material: a Scottish perspective

    Stuart Campbell, Treasure Trove Unit, National Museums Scotland

    In Scotland the same laws which deal with chance finds and Treasure Trove also apply to excavation assemblages, with the result that there is a clear procedure which allocates assemblages to museums. Nevertheless, these procedures have simply brought clarity to the same problem that applies elsewhere in the UK, that many museums are reluctant to accept excavated material. The paper will discuss this problem from all perspectives and highlight an increasing dissonance between the requirements of the museums sector and the requirements of applied archaeology and the planning process.

    Preservation by broken record

    David Allen, Keeper of Archaeology, Hampshire County Museums Service and Chair, SMA

    There’s no doubt that the archaeological profession, all corners of it, has a clear idea of what it is trying to achieve in retrieving information and presenting it, at many different levels. There’s less certainty, however, about the archiving process, despite numerous first class surveys and statements which constantly remind us of what we should be doing. This contribution will (once again) look at the issues from a Museum Curator’s perspective and explore yet more ways to liaise, as well as showing that there are jewels to be found in a ‘back catalogue’.

    Making archives work: who owns the process?

    Quinton Carroll, Historic Environment Team Manager, Cambridgeshire County Council, and Chair, Archaeological Archives Forum

    Archaeological archives are in danger of becoming the ‘elephant in the room’ of British archaeology. We all know they are there, and are becoming a problem of increasing proportions. However, there is reluctance in the profession to tackle it, or even sometimes to acknowledge it, although thankfully this is starting to change. The archive is only acknowledged at the very end of a long process that includes many individuals from different parts of the sector. How do we deal with this and, of all the parties in the process, who is best placed to ensure the best outcome?

    The historic environment resource in store

    Duncan Brown, Head of Archaeological Archives, English Heritage

    The Society of Museum Archaeologists, in association with FAME and the AAF, is seeking funding from English Heritage to support a project that will establish the current extent of the crisis facing archaeological archives. The good news is that this initiative is recognised within the National Heritage Protection Programme as an important part of addressing capacity-loss in local authorities. This talk will outline the aims of the project and the NHPP context, while also looking ahead to future issues.

    Click here for one delegate’s view of the conference.

  • Publication of the Southport Report: Realising the benefits of planning–led investigation in the historic environment: a framework for delivery

    Publication of the Southport Report: Realising the benefits of planning–led investigation in the historic environment: a framework for delivery

    This week saw the launch of the eagerly-awaited report of the Southport Group, on the public benefits of development-led investigation of the historic environment. The report, based on extensive sector consultation, outlines recommendations for change and calls for sign-up from historic environment practitioners, developers and planners. To download a copy of the report, click here

  • FAME response to Fenland District Council

    FAME response to Fenland District Council

    Newly-installed Fenland District Council Leader Alan Melton has shocked the archaeological world with an announcement that conservation rules in the district are to be relaxed and pre-application archaeological evaluations no longer required. The full text of his speech can be viewed here. FAME has written to Councillor Melton, emphasising the importance of pre-application assessment, and the potential risk of costly delays and disruption should archaeological deposits be revealed once development is underway.

    “Dear Councillor Melton

    Fenland District Council and Archaeology

    I am writing to you on behalf of the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers, which represents around 50 archaeological businesses providing advice and specialist services to commercial clients and developers throughout the UK.

    We were concerned to read your comments last week on proposed changes in policy on archaeology and development in Fenland District.

    Fenland contains some of the most significant and exceptionally-preserved archaeological deposits in the country and our members have been actively engaged in archaeological excavation, recording and publication within the district for many years.

    The changes you suggest would of course have serious consequences for the archaeology of Fenland, those businesses who record and interpret it and those local residents and communities who benefit from it.

    However, my reason for writing is to raise our particular concerns about its potential implications for our clients in both the public and private sector.

    For the past two decades, central and local government planning policy has provided a clear and effective framework in which archaeological issues can be dealt with through the planning and development management process. This remains true of both current and proposed national planning guidance, and is reflected in Fenland District Council’s own development plan policies.

    The fundamental principle underlying all this guidance is the necessity for the earliest possible assessment of archaeological significance – to provide greater certainty for applicants and developers before planning applications are determined, and to reduce the risk to them of costly delays and disruption once planning consent has been granted and development is underway.

    This strategy of pre-determination survey is precisely the same as that which has proved so effective in assessing other environmental constraints, such as flood risk and hydrology, ground stability, land quality, ecology, access and transport.

    In our extensive experience of advising commercial clients and developers throughout the UK, the greatest risk they face in relation to archaeology is not the cost of potentially unnecessary pre-application works, but the uncertainty of proceeding with development without first having assessed its likely archaeological impact. Whilst many business clients might well begrudge the cost of pre-application works, most will accept them as an essential risk-management measure.

    We do not disagree with you that archaeological requirements must be reasonable and, as government planning guidance makes clear, proportionate to the significance of the archaeological remains. However our fear is that, far from promoting economic growth, a return to an era of eleventh-hour post-consent archaeological works could have potentially very costly and disruptive consequences for the development sector.”

    cc Sandra Claxton, Chief Executive, Fenland District Council

    Derek McKenzie, Head of Development Services, Fenland District Council

  • FAME Forum 2011: speaker summaries

    This year’s FAME Forum will be held in association with the Society of Museum Archaeologists, and will bring together speakers from both organisations and other leading figures to discuss how we can plan a more sustainable future for our archaeological archives. (more…)

  • Trouble in Store: facing up to the archaeological archives crisis

    Trouble in Store: facing up to the archaeological archives crisis

    This year’s FAME Forum will consider the growing crisis facing our archaeological archives. Such has been the growth in fieldwork since 1990 that overstretched museums in many parts of the country are refusing to accept any more archaeological archives. As a result, FAME members are storing a growing volume of excavated material which is undeposited and inaccessible.

    • What is the extent of the problem?
    • What are the hidden costs to FAME members?
    • What is the research value and usage of archaeological archives?
    • What are their public benefits, and how can they be increased?
    • Whose responsibility is it to ensure they are properly stored and cared for?
    • Should we make greater use of digital technology?
    • Should we be more selective in what we retain from excavations?

    Held in association with the Society of Museum Archaeologists, the Forum will bring together speakers from both organisations to discuss how we can plan a more sustainable future for our archaeological archives. Speakers will include Roland Smith, Catherine Hardman, Stuart Campbell, David Allen, Quinton Carroll and Duncan Brown.

    The meeting will take place on Friday 1 July, at Merchant Taylors Hall, York. Admission is free to FAME and SMA members, and £50 to non-members, including lunch, morning coffee and afternoon tea. Advance booking is essential – for a booking form contact Hilda Young, 01722 343444, h.young@wessexarch.co.uk or click FAME Forum 2011.