Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit

The Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers (FAME) was concerned to learn of the proposed closure of the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit (GMAU).

FAME represents around 50 archaeological businesses providing advice and specialist services to commercial clients and developers throughout the UK. Its members have been actively engaged in archaeological excavation, recording and publication in Greater Manchester for many years.

This work has only been made possible through the advice and expertise of GMAU in informing local planning decisions, promoting sustainable growth and protecting the historic environment of the area. In the thirty years since it was established, GMAU has been instrumental in highlighting the international importance of Greater Manchester’s industrial heritage, and at the forefront of promoting community engagement and regeneration through the historic environment.

Through its support for GMAU, AGMA enables the local planning authorities of Greater Manchester to meet their obligations, under Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment and the draft National Planning Policy Framework, to have access to expert advice and to maintain or have access to a Historic Environment Record (HER). It also enables them to implement those historic environment policies set out in their statutory Local Development Frameworks and emerging neighbourhood development plans.

Any interruption to the service provided by GMAU would have serious consequences for the archaeology of Greater Manchester, those businesses who record and interpret it and those local residents and communities who benefit from it.

It would also have a serious impact on our clients in both the public and private sector, who depend upon timely and expert advice and an up-to-date HER to provide greater certainty 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.

Whilst we fully understand the budgetary pressures currently facing local government, we are very concerned by the potential consequences of the closure of GMAU, and ask for your reassurance that there will be no interruption either to the maintenance of the HER or to the provision of specialist archaeological advice in Greater Manchester.

Yours sincerely

Adrian Tindall MA FSA MIfA

Chief Executive, Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers

Anyone concerned about future archaeological provision in Greater Manchester should write to Chris Findley, Planning Lead, Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, chris.findley@salford.gov.uk

FAME is the voice of archaeological business in the UK.

FAME represents archaeological businesses throughout the UK, whether commercial consultancies and practices, local authorities, universities or charitable trusts.

We support our members by

• Voicing their concerns on national issues
• Providing advice, support and information
• Contributing to national forums, committees and alliances
• Responding to national policy consultations
• Liaising with key partners such as ALGAO, CBA and IfA
• Collating market data in partnership with IfA
• Contributing to IfA Standards and Guidance
• Promoting training and professional development
• Publishing a Health and Safety Manual and safety updates
• Collating national health and safety data
• Hosting annual networking events
• Publishing regular newsletters and employment updates

To find out more, email info@famearchaeology.co.uk.

Trouble in Store: facing up to the archives crisis

The next steps

FAME and the Society of Museum Archaeologists (SMA) held a successful joint meeting in July 2011 entitled Trouble in Store: facing up to the archives crisis. With speakers from FAME, the SMA, ALGAO, English Heritage and the Archaeology Data Service, it was clear that there were many common issues to all parties relating to archaeological archives arising principally from developer-funded projects.

At the forefront was the issue of archives that cannot be deposited because there is no suitable museum or store. Other significant issues included the absence of data on museum storage capacity, the number of undeposited archives, and who does or does not use which archives for what purpose. Wider issues included the content of archives, the management of digital data and ownership of the process of archive preparation and deposition within a planning context.

The joint meeting was successful, as a first step, in underlining the seriousness of the situation and in agreeing that many of the issues need to be addressed with some urgency.

The next step is to decide on a way forward and a pathway to identifying acceptable solutions. This note sets out some broad principles and provides a ‘statement of intent’.

FAME, the SMA and ALGAO have agreed the following objectives:

1. To support fully the SMA’s Evaluating the archaeological resource in store – informing the future survey and will encourage all their members to contribute to it, engage with it, and take on board its recommendations

2.  To work with the AAF to support the updating of existing guidance on the processes, preparation and content of archaeological archives that embraces all elements of the archive

3. To encourage, support and publicise initiatives that explore or pilot justifiable, co-ordinated, collaborative and accountable selection and retention policies on archaeological projects and work towards practical guidance for curators and archaeological practices

4. To promote and encourage improved communication and liaison between museum professionals, local authority historic environment advisors and archaeological practices

5. To provide collective and individual support to local authorities, museums or other appropriate organisations that seek to fund and create Archaeological Resource Centres

6. To achieve within a reasonable timeframe an agreed policy statement on the management of archives that cannot be deposited because there is no appropriate museum or store

        Society of Museum Archaeologists        

 December 2011

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.

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

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.

• Download this presentation

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.

• Download this presentation

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.

• Download this presentation

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’.

• Download this presentation
• Download this presentation (text)

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?

• Download this presentation

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.

• Download this presentation

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

“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

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.

http://www.radiocarbon.com