Please ask for: Richard Pawson Telephone: 01482 613539 Fax: 01482 613110 Email: [email protected] Text phone: 01482 300349 Date: Monday, 20 October 2014
Dear Sir/Madam,
Joint Humber Archaeology Partnership Board
The next meeting of the Joint Humber Archaeology Partnership Board will be held at 10:00 on Friday, 31 October 2014 in Room 77.
The Agenda for the meeting is attached and reports are enclosed where relevant.
Please Note: It is likely that the public, (including the Press) will be excluded from the meeting during discussions of exempt items since they involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as describe in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Yours faithfully,
Democratic Services Officer for the Chief Executive
Town Clerk Services, Hull City Council, The Guildhall, AlfredPage Gelder 1 of Street,42 Hull, HU1 2AA www.hullcc.gov.uk DX: 11934 HULL 1 Tel: 01482 300300
Humber Archaeology
To: Membership: Councillor S Chaytor, Hull City Council Councillors D Peacock and P Pollard, East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Officers: Alex Codd, Planning Services, Hull City Council Steve Devey, Planning and Development Control Customer Services, East Riding of Yorkshire Council Dave Evans, Humber Archaeology Unit Dave Lister, Corporate Finance, Hull City Council Richard Pawson, Democratic Services Officer, Hull City Council (2) Ruth Atkinson, Humber Archaeology Unit
Email (Agenda only): Paula Gentil, Hull Museums Mr A Wainwright, Planning and Development Control, Customer Services, East Riding of Yorkshire Council Diane Hindhaugh, Democratic Services, East Riding of Yorkshire Council Mr K Emerick, Yorkshire Regional Team, English Heritage Mr B Howard, National Monuments Record, English Heritage Group Secretariats, Hull City Council
Page 2 of 42
Joint Humber Archaeology Partnership Board
10:00 on Friday, 31 October 2014
Room 77
A G E N D A PROCEDURAL ITEMS
1 Apologies
To receive apologies for those Members who are unable to attend the meeting.
2 Election Of Chair
To elect a Chair for the meeting.
3 Iterm 3 - Minutes of the Meeting held on 27.06.14 5 - 8 To approve the minutes as a true and correct record.
NON-EXEMPT ITEMS
4 Item 4 - Auditors Comments on the Annual Return 9 - 12 To report on the comments of the external auditors on the Annual Return for the Partnership for the last financial year (2013-2014) and on the actions the service is now required to take.
5 Item 5 - Work of the Partnership 13 - 28 To provide an update on the work of the Partnership in the current financial year (2014-2015)
6 Item 6 - Charging Policy 29 - 38 To report on the proposals to revise and update the charging policy for the Humber SMR as part of the review process.
Page 3 of 42
7 Item 7 - Administrative Officer Post 39 - 42 To provide an update on the current position.
8 Date and Venue of Next Meeting To agree the date and venue of the next meeting.
9 Planes and Ploughs - Mapping the Hidden Heritage of the East Riding To receive a presentation from Mr Dave MacLeod, Operational Manager (Aerial Investigations and Mapping/Remote Sensing/Heritage Protection Department) - English Heritage
EXEMPT ITEMS
Page 4 of 42
HUMBER ARCHAEOLOGY PARTNERSHIP JOINT BOARD
27th June, 2014
The Treasure House PRESENT:
Councillor D. Peacock (East Riding of Yorkshire Council) Councillor S. Chaytor (Hull City Council) S. Devey (Team Leader, Conservation Landscape and Archaeology, Planning and Development Management, East Riding of Yorkshire Council) D. Evans (Archaeology Manager, Hull City Council) R. Atkinson (Senior SMR Officer, Hull City Council) D. Lister (Senior Finance Officer, Hull City Council) D. Marchant (Museums Registrar) L. Scholes (Democratic Services Officer, Hull City Council)
APOLOGIES:-
None
Minute Report Business No. No. 440 Election of Chair for the Meeting
Agreed – that Councillor Peacock be appointed as Chair for the duration of the meeting.
441 Minutes of the meeting held on 7th February, 2014
Agreed – that, with the amendment of the location to read ‘The Guildhall, Hull’, the minutes of the meeting held on 7th February, 2014 having been printed and circulated be agreed;
442 211 Annual Return for the Financial Year Ended 31st March 2014
The Senior Finance Officer submitted the annual return for the financial year ended 31st March 2014.
Agreed – that the Annual Return is approved and signed by the Chair.
443 212 Annual Governance Statement
The Senior Finance Officer submitted the Annual Governance Statement for the Partnership for the financial year 2013-2014. Page 5 of 42 1
Minute Report Business No. No. Agreed – that the Governance Statement be approved.
444 Report on the Work of the partnership During the Last Financial Year 2013-2014
The Archaeology Manager submitted a report which detailed the work of the Partnership for the previous financial year 2013-14. He explained that the information included data that had been submitted during the year as well as some additional data.
The Partnership had achieved a great deal in terms of SMR Enhancement in the last year due to having an additional member of staff for nine months.
Agreed – that the update be noted.
445 Report on the Work of the Partnership During the Current Financial Year 2014-2015
The Archaeology Manager submitted a report which detailed the work of the Partnership for the current financial year. He explained that work was still taking place on SMR enhancement, however it was at a slower pace as there was not the additional member of staff.
The Partnership had not yet received much income, but that was to be expected at this time of the year.
The Archaeology Manager highlighted the upcoming major work in relation to the A63 particularly around the burial ground, and excavations were also expected to begin this summer at Melton Parks.
Members noted that it was expected to be a busy autumn for the Partnership
Agreed – that the update be noted.
446 Report on the Progress of Updating Job descriptions for the Staff of the Humber SMR
The Archaeology Manager submitted a report which detailed the progress of updating the Job Descriptions for the staff of the Humber SMR. This would be submitted to the Board at its next meeting.
Agreed – thatPage the update 6 of 42 be noted. 2
Minute Report Business No. No.
447 Any Other Business
Members commented that in future it there was a presentation it should be emailed out to them in advance of the meeting.
Agreed – that in future the presentation be emailed to the Members before the meeting.
448 Date and Time of Next Meeting
Agreed – that the next meeting takes place at 10.00 a.m. on 31st October 2014 at the Guildhall in Hull.
Start: 10.30 a.m. Finish: 10.45 a.m.
Page 7 of 42 3
Page 8 of 42 Agenda Item 4
Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board 31st October 2014
The auditors’ comments on the Annual Return for the Humber Archaeology Partnership for 2013-2014, and the actions which we are now required to take
Archaeology Manager
1. Purpose of report and summary
1.1. To report to the Board on the comments from the external auditors on the Annual Return for the Partnership, for the last financial year (2013 – 2014), and on the actions which, as a joint service, we are now required to take.
Recommendations 2.1 That the Board approves the three main actions required under the Accounts & Audit (England) Regulations 2011, namely to prepare a “Notice of Conclusion of the audit and the right to inspect the Annual return”; to publicly display that said “Notice” for a period of at least 14 days along with certified Annual Return; and to keep copies of the Annual Return available for purchase by any person on payment of a reasonable sum. 2.2 In order to comply with the auditors’ requirements to produce evidence that the Board has considered the adequacy of its internal controls, that the HAP JB should confirm and minute that it has: (i) Approved the statement of accounts which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Accounts and Audit Regulations and proper practice. (ii) Maintained an adequate system of internal control, including measures designed to prevent and detect fraud and corruption, and reviewed its effectiveness (iii) Taken all reasonable steps to assure itself that there are no matters of actual or potential non-compliance with laws, regulations and codes of practice, which could have a significant financial effect on the ability of the body to conduct its business or on its finances (iv) Provided proper opportunity during the year for the exercise of electors’ rights in accordance with the requirements of the Accounts and Audit Regulations (v) Carried out an assessment of the risks facing the body, and taken appropriate steps to manage those risks, including the introduction of internal controls, and/or external insurance cover, where required (vi) Maintained throughout the year an adequate and effective system of internal audit of the body’s accounting records and control systems, and carried out a review of its effectiveness (vii) Taken appropriate action on all matters raised in reports from internal and external audit, and
Page 9 of 42 (viii) Considered whether any litigation, liabilities or commitments, events or transactions, occurring either during or after the year-end, have a financial impact on the body, and, where appropriate, have included them in the statement of accounts
3. Report 3.1. This is the first year in which our accounts have been audited by PKF Littlejohn, as auditors appointed by the Audit Commission. A copy of their certified Annual Return is included in the papers circulated to Members. Section 3 of the Annual Return includes the External Auditors’ report, which gives details of any matters arising from the Audit.
Actions which we are now required to take: 3.2. As we are a joint public service, we are subject to external audit annually: our audited accounts must be publicly accessible for scrutiny. We are therefore subject to the requirements of the Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/817). At the conclusion of the audit, we are required to: Prepare a “Notice of conclusion of the audit and right to inspect the Annual Return”, in line with the statutory requirements. PKF Littlejohn has provided a pro forma notice which we may use for this purpose. Display the “Notice” for a period of at least 14 days, along with the certified Annual Return”. * [The Annual Return must be displayed in such a way that at least Sections 1, 2 and 3 are visible. It is acceptable to display a copy of the Annual Return, as long as it is a true facsimile and bears a note saying where the original can be inspected.] Keep copies of the Annual Return available for purchase by any person, on payment of a reasonable sum.
* “Displaying the Annual Return on the Body’s notice boards satisfies the publication requirements of Regulation 13 of the Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011. However, publication could also include copying onto a website, publishing as a separate leaflet, or publishing in a newspaper or as part of a newsletter.”
3.3. In the past, we have placed copies on notice boards within The Guildhall, and outside of County Hall; but, as the auditors have indicated above, scanning this information and publishing it on the Authorities’ websites would also be an option – should the Board so wish.
Matters arising from the Audit 3.4. The auditors have raised two specific issues, which we now need to address. Apart from these, the auditors feel that the information provided in the Annual Return was in accordance with proper practice, and no other matters have come to their attention which gave any cause for concern that the relevant legislation and regulatory requirements had not been met. The two issues were: (a) That the Board has not produced evidence that it has considered the adequacy of its internal controls, or that it has carried out a risk assessment. Such evidence that it has produced is in respect of Hull City Council, rather than the Board. (b) That the internal auditor has not considered whether a risk assessment has been carried
Page 10 of 42 out.
3.5. What we ought to have done at the last Board meeting was to ask the Board to confirm and minute a series of specific resolutions, in response to the Annual Statement of Governance. These are set out below, and follow a formula outlined by the Audit Commission; in previous years, we have followed this procedure, and it would appear to address the requirement to provide evidence that the Board has indeed considered the adequacy of its internal controls.
3.6 If we do that, there should be no need to carry out a risk assessment immediately, but we would clearly need to undertake such an assessment in time for next year’s audit. We are giving some thought as to what form the risk assessment would take.
Recommendation 3.7 That the Board approves the three main actions required under the Accounts & Audit (England) Regulations 2011, namely to prepare a “Notice of Conclusion of the audit and the right to inspect the Annual return”; to publicly display that said “Notice” for a period of at least 14 days along with certified Annual Return; and to keep copies of the Annual Return available for purchase by any person on payment of a reasonable sum.
3.8 In order to comply with the auditors’ requirements to produce evidence that the Board has considered the adequacy of its internal controls, that the HAP JB should confirm and minute that it has: (i) Approved the statement of accounts which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Accounts and Audit Regulations and proper practice. (ii) Maintained an adequate system of internal control, including measures designed to prevent and detect fraud and corruption, and reviewed its effectiveness (iii) Taken all reasonable steps to assure itself that there are no matters of actual or potential non-compliance with laws, regulations and codes of practice, which could have a significant financial effect on the ability of the body to conduct its business or on its finances (iv) Provided proper opportunity during the year for the exercise of electors’ rights in accordance with the requirements of the Accounts and Audit Regulations (v) Carried out an assessment of the risks facing the body, and taken appropriate steps to manage those risks, including the introduction of internal controls, and/or external insurance cover, where required (vi) Maintained throughout the year an adequate and effective system of internal audit of the body’s accounting records and control systems, and carried out a review of its effectiveness (vii) Taken appropriate action on all matters raised in reports from internal and external audit, and (viii) Considered whether any litigation, liabilities or commitments, events or transactions, occurring either during or after the year-end, have a financial impact on the body, and, where appropriate, have included them in the statement of accounts
Page 11 of 42 4. Officer contact For background information, please contact Dr. D. Evans, Humber Archaeology Partnership, The Old School, Northumberland Avenue, Hull HU2 0LN (tel. 01482 310619).
Page 12 of 42
Agenda Item 5
For information only
Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board 31st October 2014
Report on the work of the Partnership during the current financial year 2014-2015
Archaeology Manager
1. Purpose of report and summary
1.1. To report to the Board on the work of the Partnership in the current financial year (2014 – 2015).
2. FOR INFORMATION ONLY.
Page 13 of 42 3. Report
Curatorial Section (the Humber SMR)
3.1 One of our job-share Administrative Officers, June Rooney, took voluntary early retirement at the end of August. June has been with us for some seven years, and had worked with the Council for over 20 years. This leaves us currently without any administrative support on Mondays.
3.2 Development Control work has been steady, and is similar in numbers to that recorded last year (see paragraph 3.9, below). The agricultural sector continues to be buoyant, with applications for individual or twin wind turbines, egg-rearing units, poultry units, general purpose buildings, etc. The numbers of Submission of Details applications received is also fairly constant; and there have also been a number of resubmissions and amended applications. Developer enquiries have increased, particularly in the East Riding, with overall numbers having doubled from last year.
3.3 Consultations regarding the major A63 improvements scheme through Castle Street in Hull have been intensifying during the summer months, as the Highways Agency is preparing its submission for its Development Order this autumn. An application has been made to the Diocese for a Faculty for the ground investigation scheme within the Holy Trinity Burial Ground, and also for the initial trial trenching; the recommendation from the DAC was for this to be approved. Balfour Beatty has been appointed as the main Civil Engineering contractor, and they will apparently put the archaeology out to tender. Discussions have also taken place with the City Council over an archaeological scheme for addressing the impacts of the proposed new footbridge over the A63. English Heritage held a workshop in Leeds during August, on sampling strategies for the archaeological recovery of burials from late post- medieval burial grounds – and focused the days‟ presentations on how best to approach the archaeology of the Holy Trinity Burial Ground.
3.4 . Detailed discussions have been taking place with National Grid and their consultants over a Statement of Common Ground concerning the proposed Carbon Capture and Storage gas pipeline. The latter is expected to apply for its Consent Order this autumn. Some 90% of the route has now been subject to geophysical survey – leaving only those areas where the ground was too wet to survey (because of flooding), or the crops were too high around the time of survey, or where landowners had refused access. As the non-intrusive surveys have largely been completed, the applicants now have enough information to draft their ES, in support of the application for Consent. There is a great deal of interesting archaeology on the route of this pipeline; trial trenching would be the next stage in the archaeological programme, but is likely to take place after Consent has been granted.
3.5 We have commented in detail on the draft Assessment Reports for both the Westermost Rough Onshore Cable Route, and the Humber Gateway Onshore Cable Route.
Page 14 of 42
3.6 The University of Hull undertook two small research excavations this summer: one on the site of a postulated Roman Villa, and another on an Iron Age hilltop square barrow cemetery and enclosure site on Nunburnholme Wold.
3.7 English Heritage has begun a formal consultation over the potential scheduling of a cropmark site at Church Land, to the north of Hornsea, that was identified by aerial photography in 2009-10. This appears to be a particularly clear cropmark of a multi- period landscape, with a rectilinear field system enclosing and respecting a penannular henge monument (which itself contains an internal horseshoe-shaped enclosure), but overlying an earlier pattern of smaller enclosures. It is a singularly interesting plan, and appears to be most unusual in Northern Britain – only one other example (from Cumbria), looking anything like this, being currently known. This was one of the sites which were removed from the suggested LDF allocation, on the grounds of being of national archaeological significance.
3.8 English Heritage launched a brief public consultation on the introduction of three new Good Practice Guidance Notes in July. These are intended to replace the Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide, which was issued in 2010 to accompany the late PPS 5; whilst the latter has been withdrawn, the former is still current. The draft Good Practice Guidance Notes have a number of faults, and are not particularly helpful in their current form.
3.9 Natural England has announced that the final date for updating their dataset for SHINE [the Selective Heritage Inventory for Natural England] is Tuesday 30th September 2014; after that date, archaeological sites which are not included in their dataset would not be included in any consideration of NELMS “upper tier” applications. This would thus exclude many of the archaeological sites within the area covered by the East Riding of Yorkshire. As we have reported previously to the Joint Archaeology Board, the grants which were available for this work from Natural England in earlier years did not really cover the staff costs involved; as we are also effectively stopped from employing any additional temporary or fixed-term staff, to assist with such a task, there was little point in applying for any fresh grants. In addition, the bureaucracy involved would have tied up substantial amounts of officer time, and was counter-productive.
3.10 The detailed statistics for development proposals and SMR enquiries for the period from 1st April 2014 to the 31st August 2014 are as follows:
Numbers in brackets represent average per week over the 21 week period. 1st April 2014 to 31st August 2014
Page 15 of 42 Planning Applications Taken from weekly lists received between 1/4/14 to 31/8/14
ERYC KUHCC Total
Total number of applications on weekly lists 1936 454 2390 (114)
Those checked against the SMR 793 136 929 (44)
Number downloaded 105 19 124 (6)
Casework received between 1/4/14 to 31/8/14
ERYC KUHCC Total
Developer Enquiries 40 9 49 (2) (pre-planning and pre-land purchase)
Planning Applications 149 15 164 (8) (Outline, Reserved matters, Full Applications)
Heritage Management 9 7 16 (1) (Listed Building Consent, Conservation Area Works and Ecclesiastical Exemption)
Strategic/Forward Planning 1 - 1 (<1) (Development Briefs, Conservation Area Appraisals, Local Plans and SPG‟s)
Statutory Consultations 11 - 11 (<1) (Utilities Applications, Environment Agency and Highways Consultations)
Agri-environment schemes 6 - 6 (<1) (Environmental Stewardship, Forestry applications, energy crops scheme, short rotation coppice and Hedgerow removals)
Detailed Analysis of Consultations replied to between 1/4/14 and 31/8/14 Page 16 of 42 Action Advised ERYC KUHCC Total
Borehole 1 - 1 (<1)
Building Recording 11 20 31 (1)
Desk Based Assessment 9 - 9 (<1)
Evaluation – all categories 87 3 90 (4)
Evaluation by geophysical survey 27 1 28 (1)
Evaluation by monitored topsoil strip 30 1 31 (1)
Evaluation by trial trenching 30 1 31 (1)
Preservation by Record - - -
Mitigation 3 1 4 (<1)
No Impact 64 4 68 (3)
Preservation in situ 3 1 4 (<1)
Publication - 1 1 (<1)
Record earthworks - - -
Watching briefs 90 6 96 (5)
Conditions requested 118 16 134 (6)
Refusals recommended 3 2 5
Other Casework ERYC KUHCC Total
Total number of casework received 228 40 268 (13)
Reports received 55 2 57 (3)
Project Designs received 62 7 69 (3)
Fieldwork Commencing 45 4 49 (2)
Sites monitored and recorded on planning 9 - 9 (<1) database
Page 17 of 42 Other Casework ERYC KUHCC Total
Specifications prepared 13 2 15 (1)
Site visits made to assess site conditions 1 - 1 (<1)
Discharge of conditions 64 1 65 (3)
Total number of casework files closed 206 20 226 (11)
Amended proposals received 18 3 21 (1)
Submission of details received 66 2 68 (3)
Variation of Condition 14 - 14 (1)
Percentage of responses made within agreed 94% deadlines
General enquiries relating to Consultations 24 2 26 (1)
Non-planning related ERYC KUHCC Total
Forestry applications 2 - 2 (<1)
Environmental Stewardship Applications 3 - 3 (<1)
Energy Crop Scheme applications/Short - - - Rotation coppice applications
Hedgerow Notifications 1 - 1 (<1)
Demolition notifications - 17 17 (1)
Public Enquiries to the Sites and Monuments Records Record Enquiries received between 1/4/14 and 31/8/14 Non planning related
Public Enquiries ERYC KUHCC Total
Visitors to Office 40 7 47 (2)
Visitors to events 40 - 40 (2)
Page 18 of 42 Telephone Enquiries 27 6 33 (2)
Letters - - -
Email 33 14 47 (2)
Total Users 140 27 167 (8)
SMR Enhancement taken place between 1st April 2014 and 31st August 2014 Numbers in ( ) brackets show the weekly average Numbers in [ ] show percentage of overall record rounded to one decimal place
Type of enhancement on digital record ERYC KUHCC Total
Number of new monuments records created 8 1 9 (<1) [0.05%] Number of monument records amended on digital record 112 45 157 (7) [0.9%] Number of new event records created 85 1 86 (4) [3.9%] Number of event records amended on the digital record 141 2 143 (7) [6.5%] Number of new source records created 115 6 121 (6) [1.1%] Number of source records amended on digital record 618 9 627 (30) [5.8%] Number of new designation records created 4 1 5 (<1) [0.1%] Number of designation records modified on digital record 21 2 23 (1) [0.6%]
Total number of new or modified digital records 1104 67 1171 (56) [3.3%]
Enhancement on digital consultation record ERYC KUHCC Total
Number of new consultation records created 231 35 266 (12.7) [1.4%] Number of consultation records amended on digital record 999 134 1133 (54) [5.9%]
Total number of new or modified digital records 1230 169 1399 (67) [7%]
The above statistics have been compared to the same period from the previous financial year‟s results to allow for detailed comparisons to be made. The trend of the workload has remained constant over many factors. The sections have been separated to reflect the table heading from the relevant information from above.
Planning applications – weekly lists We have seen the number of planning applications remaining at similar levels to those we saw last year with an average of 112 applications per week and this year there is an average of 114 per week appearing on the weekly lists. As such we have also seen a similar number of applications that have been checked against the SMR to assess whether they have an impact on above or below-ground archaeology which was an average of 46
Page 19 of 42 per week last week and 44 per week for this current financial year. The average number of applications we are downloading has remained at a similar level of an average of six per week.
Casework received The number of developer enquiries has doubled from one per week last year to two per week for this financial year. The number of planning applications we have commented on has decreased from 10 per week last year to eight per week for this year. The categories for Heritage Management, Strategic and Forward Planning as well as Statutory Consultations and agri-environment schemes have all remained at similar levels to those seen last year.
Action advised The type of action advised has stayed as a similar average to those seen last year in most cases. As such the only categories mentioned further are those where there has been some change. There has been a slight decrease in the number of evaluations by monitored topsoil strip that have been recommended. We have also seen a decrease in the number of consultations where we have recorded that the proposal will have no impact on the archaeological resource. In addition, we have also seen a decrease in the number of preservation in situ recommendations (this will be due to the reduction in the number of agri-environment schemes). There is also a slight decrease in the number of conditions that we have requested to be applied to planning permissions, from an average of seven per week last year, to six per week for this year.
Other Casework The total numbers of new casework received has remained at an average of 13 per week. We have seen an increase in the number of fieldwork reports received from an average of two per week, to three per week. The number of project designs received for comment and approval has remained at an average of three per week. We have also maintained the number of pieces of archaeological fieldwork being undertaken, with an average of two pieces of archaeological work commencing each week. The number of monitoring visits that have been made to relevant types of fieldwork has remained at a similar level to that seen last year. The level of specifications requested for us to prepare has increased slightly from less than one per week on average last year, to one per week for this calendar year. The number of planning applications that we have recommended for discharge of the archaeological condition has remained at the same levels as those seen last year, with an average of three per week. There has been a slight decrease in the number of casework files that have been closed, from an average of 12 per week last year, to 11 per week for this year.
The number of amended proposals that we receive, has remained at an average of one per week this year. The number of submission of details that we receive has remained at an average of three per week, the same level that was recorded for this period last year. The number of variation of condition consultations that we receive has increased slightly from an average of less than one per week last year, to an average of one per week for this year. Last year we responded to 98% of all the planning applications within the agreed
Page 20 of 42 deadlines; however, this year we are currently achieving responses to 94% of all planning applications within the agreed deadlines this year – but this does include the summer period, when many officers are on annual leave. General Enquiries relating to DM issues have decreased slightly, from an average of two per week last year, to one per week for this year.
Non-planning related consultations The number of Environmental Stewardship applications has decreased from an average of one per week last year, to only receiving three during the 21 week period for this financial year. Also, we have not received any energy crop scheme applications. Other categories of agri-environment work have remained at similar levels to those seen last year. The number of demolition notices has remained at similar levels to those recorded for the same period last year.
Public enquiries On the public access side, we have seen an increase in the average from one visitor per week to the offices last year, to an average of two per week for this year. The number of telephone enquiries has increased to an average of two per week for this year. The average number of email and letter enquires have both remained at similar levels to those seen last year. We have seen a slight decrease in the number of people attending events to those recorded last year, with an average of two per week this year. There has been an increase in the overall number of users, from an average of seven per week last year, to eight per week this year.
The level of enhancement to the digital Sites and Monuments Record that is undertaken by the current three officers in that office (Senior SMR Officer, SMR Officer and Archaeology DC Officer), has also been outlined in the above tables. As we have reported previously, the loss of the fixed-term SMR Office Assistant post would have a substantial impact on the levels of enhancement which could be achieved: that was, after all, the main reason for setting up that fixed-term post. Last year, we had achieved 11% of the digital SMR record being modified, or new records created. This year, the average is at 3.3%, which is a substantial decrease in SMR enhancement. On the digital SMR there are in excess of 35,000 records. Currently, we have an average of 56 records being created or amended each week on the SMR, which is an average of over 19 records per week being amended or created on the SMR (not including DC and other consultation records) by each of the individual officers. The impact of the loss of the fixed–term post is that the comparable figure being achieved during the same period last year was an average 35 new or amended records per week for each officer.
In addition to this, an average of 67 consultation records are also being created or amended each week. This is an increase in the number seen for the similar period last year, when an average of 56 records per week were being created or amended. The current level means that an extra 22 records per week on average are being created or amended by each of the three officers undertaking this type of work.
Page 21 of 42 3.11. The figures for expenditure and income from 1st April 2014 to 25th September 2014 are:
Change from last year’s 2014/2015 budget Expenditure at % EXPENDITURE Budget % 25/09/2014 spent
PERMANENT EMPLOYEES £ 155,578.76 102 £ 66,929.89 43
PREMISES £ 12,000.00 92 £ 8,153.15 68
TRAVEL & SUBSISTENCE £ 750.00 38 £ 475.85 63
SUPPLIES & SERVICES £ 3,650.00 147 £ 1,428.47 39
CENTRALISED CHARGES £ 27,981.00 99 £ - 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURE £ 199,959.76 101 £ 76,987.36 39
Target Actual INCOME £ 199,959.50 £ 101,998.50 51
Notes: The second column simply shows how this year‟s approved budget compares with last year‟s allocations. There was a national pay award and changes to superannuation which affected the salaries and oncosts of staff. In addition, City-wide changes as to which sub- code certain of our former “Premises” charges were allocated, meant that these now appear under “Supplies and Services”.
We are approximately half-way through the financial year, and have currently spent 39% of the allocated budget; that is not particularly unusual for the first half of the financial year, as our heavier energy charges etc. tend to fall in the second half – and that is also when we would expect to get more calls on our maintenance budget, to pay for clearing blocked gutters, or to replace slipping roof-slates, etc.
The bulk of our income comes from the monies allocated by the two Local Authorities; as we are coming to the end of the sixth month, we have invoiced for the half-yearly amounts from each Authority; we have also invoiced for the half-yearly contributions to our premises costs from both HFA and Peter Didsbury. But, we are also performing well in generating external income. We have already exceeded our annual targets for SMR searches (144.5% of the target), and producing Specifications (122% of our target); but, as predicted the income from providing advice on FEPs is currently well down (so far,
Page 22 of 42 just 20% of the target for the year), and we have had no requests for advice on Energy Crop schemes, and no requests for publication sales.
As a result, of these various efforts: we have currently brought in 51% of the allocated total income target. Of the allocated target for external income (£4,745), we have already brought in £4,410 (92.9%). So, our finances are currently looking reasonably healthy. However, the drop-off in income from agri-environmental schemes, compared with previous years, does indicate a change in income streams, and shows that we have been very lucky so far this year, in that the shortfall in this sector has been more than made good by a demand for other services – notably SMR searches for large infrastructure projects, and requests for specifications. In planning for the future, we cannot assume that we shall be as lucky in future years.
We were previously assured by Hull City Council that the costs of clearing up the debris caused by the ceiling collapse in April 2013, and the costs of its subsequent repair, would be met by the City Council from central funding; this came to £2,101.67. Despite this assurance, this amount was debited from our account last November, and we have since been trying to recover this sum. We are now assured that it will be reimbursed to us in due course.
The total of the ear-marked reserve stands at £22,396.
Humber Field Archaeology
3.12. Work on the analysis phase for the Caythorpe GSF project is ongoing.
3.13. We reported last time that the last of the Phase 3 reports, and the project overview and synthesis, for the Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment project, was submitted to English Heritage for their comments at the end of May. This has been well received, and EH has made some very complimentary comments.
3.14. Excavations are continuing at the Dryham Lane quarry, North Cave.
3.15. HFA carried out excavations on a Romano-British site at Elloughton, following an earlier geophysical survey which had identified a number of features, including enclosures; as the trial trenching showed that the remains were more extensive than the geophysical survey had indicated, a watching brief will be carried out on the rest of the topsoil stripping for a large residential development.
3.16. The titles in the HFA reports series from report no. 425 are: 425. An archaeological evaluation on land off Common Lane, Welton, East Riding of Yorkshire. 426. [River Hull DBA] 427. An archaeological evaluation on land at Church Farm, Front Street, Laxton, East Riding of Yorkshire.
Page 23 of 42 428. Archaeological watching brief at proposed wind farm at land between Cowden Lane and Aldbrough Road, Withernwick, East Riding of Yorkshire. 429. An archaeological evaluation on land at 65 Flemingate, Beverley, East Riding of Yorkshire. 430. An archaeological evaluation at C & D Foods, Unit 79, Kellythorpe Industrial Estate, Wadsworth Road, Kellythorpe, East Riding of Yorkshire. 431. An archaeological evaluation at Aspen Farm, Cliffe Road, Holme upon Spalding Moor, East Riding of Yorkshire. 432. An archaeological evaluation at Bishop Burton College, East Riding of Yorkshire. 433. An archaeological evaluation on land at 63-69 Newbegin, Hornsea, East Riding of Yorkshire. 434. Archaeological recording works on land at Andrew Marvell Business and Enterprise College, Kingston upon Hull. 435. [Little Catwick Quarry, extraction Phase 1-3:; LCQ 2009 and 2010] 436. Archaeological evaluation and recording at the former North End Sawmills, Eastgate North, Driffield; East Riding of Yorkshire. 437. [South Killingholme, DBA.] 438. [Star Carr Farm, borehole survey; SCF 2013.] 439. An archaeological evaluation by trial excavation on land off Magdalen Lane, Hedon, East Riding of Yorkshire. 440. An archaeological evaluation on land at Newbald Lodge, Newbald, East Riding of Yorkshire. 441. [Warren Farm, Sledmere; WFS 2013.] 442. An archaeological evaluation by monitored topsoil strip on land at The Oval, Brough, East Riding of Yorkshire. 443. An archaeological evaluation on land at Norlands Farm Caravan Park, Bridlington, East Riding of Yorkshire Council. 444. Land south of Castle Road, Cottingham, East Riding of Yorkshire: assessment of archaeological potential. 445. [Land north of Welton Low Road, Elloughton, DBA; LFA 2013.] 446. [Leconfield Flood Alleviation Scheme DBA; LFA 2013.] 447. An archaeological evaluation on land adjacent to The Grovehill public house, Holme Church Lane, Beverley; East Riding of Yorkshire. 448. Land at Wychcroft, Magdalen Lane, Hedon, East Riding of Yorkshire: Assessment of archaeological potential. 449. 450. 451. An archaeological evaluation by monitored topsoil strip on land at Wold Farm, Flamborough, East Riding of Yorkshire. 452. 453. 454. 455. 456.
Page 24 of 42 457. An archaeological evaluation on land at North Grange, North Dalton, East Riding of Yorkshire. 458. 459. Archaeological investigation and recording on a stone cross base and fragments of stonework near the former Kiplingcotes Station, East Riding of Yorkshire. 460. Archaeological survey and recording at Marton Manor Farm, Flamborough Road, Sewerby, East Riding of Yorkshire. 461. Cottingham and Orchard Park Flood Allevation Schemes (COPFAS): Land west of Dane Park Road, Orchard Park. Assessment of archaeological potential. 462. 463. 464. An archaeological evaluation on land at West Farm, Foston Lane, Beeford, East Riding of Yorkshire.
3.17. Eighteen reports have been produced since 1st April 2014, bringing the HFA watching brief reports series up to no. 1418.
Work by external contractors 3.18. On Site Archaeology are continuing to excavate on the south-eastern side of Pocklington, at The Balk, and have now moved onto the eastern side of the road. They have uncovered a number of ditches on the southern side of a major cropmark complex, and close to a rectilinear enclosure containing roundhouses. One section of a boundary ditch here contained a massive concentration of late Iron Age or early Romano-British handmade pottery vessels, and animal bones; these clearly represent a major deposit of rubbish emanating from this enclosure.
3.19. On Site Archaeology have also been carrying out trial trenching at Burtonfield Barns, Stamford Bridge. Preliminary geophysical survey revealed the presence of a number of anomalies at this site on the north-eastern fringes of Stamford Bridge, just to the south of a Roman road. The trial trenching revealed that parts of the application site were covered by a Romano-British field system; a number of boundary ditches were investigated, and abraded RB pottery was recovered from some features. In addition, a small amount of worked flint was recovered from parts of the site, and in one area a ditch was found which contained the lower half of an Iron Age handmade pottery jar.
3.20. On Site Archaeology have also been carrying out trial trenching and a subsequent overburden strip at Victoria Road School, Driffield. A number of features and archaeological deposits which pre-dated the 19th-century factory buildings on this site were uncovered; a report o the work is still awaited, but these are likely to be of early post-medieval date.
3.21. York Archaeological Trust undertook excavations and an overburden strip on the site of Fort Hall, Bridlington. This was an elaborate 1792 Regency villa, which was demolished in 1937. The walls of the basement / ground floor of this villa were found to survive in very good condition, to a height of some 8 to 10 feet, with many still bearing
Page 25 of 42 extensive painted plaster surfaces; many of the fireplaces and other internal fittings still survived in situ. This is a useful record of one of Bridlington‟s more impressive cliff-top residences from the late 18th century. No trace survived of the mid 17th- and 18th-century North Fort, which is thought to have lain on the other side of Fort Road.
3.22. CFA undertook a large-scale topsoil strip at Green Park, Newport, following on from earlier geophysical survey and trial trenching work. This revealed a far more extensive network of ditches and palaeochannels, than had previously been indicated. It seems likely that the larger palaeochannel represents a relict course of the River Foulness, and that many of the smaller artificial channels which lead into this represent a late prehistoric and Romano-British water-management system, with associated features such as fish-traps.
3.23. MAP Archaeological Practice has been undertaking trial trenching at Burnby Lane, Pocklington, in advance of residential development. This follows on from earlier geophysical survey. The trial trenching has revealed the presence of Iron Age square barrows in parts of the plot, whilst other parts include large circular or oval enclosures, and numerous enclosure and boundary ditches. This site will clearly require more extensive excavation.
3.24. The University of Hull and the East Riding Archaeological Society undertook some very limited trial trenching on a presumed villa site. The site was originally identified by metal-detecting, and has subsequently been subject to geophysical survey. Trial trenching on the site of an apsidal building showed that the site has been heavily damaged by ploughing. The building would appear to have originally been stone-walled, but only the gravel footings for the stonework now remained in situ. Similarly, the incidence of some 200 fragments of tesserae in the topsoil indicates the former presence of a mosaic pavement, but none of this now remains in situ – having been destroyed by the plough. A number of pits and ditches were encountered.
3.25. The University of Hull and the East Riding Archaeological Society undertook some trial trenching on a hill-top at Nunburnholme Wold. The English Heritage National Mapping Project for the Yorkshire Wolds had recorded the clear cropmarks of an Iron Age square barrow cemetery on part of this hill-top in the 1980s; part of the project was to establish how well the archaeology had survived during the subsequent 30 years of ploughing. Geophysical survey revealed not only the square barrows, but also the presence of enclosures, trackways and pits on other parts of the hill-top. One square barrow was investigated, whilst a number of other features were examined by limited trial trenching. It is claimed that some of the pits represent a phase of ritual feasting, whilst some of the enclosures continued in use into the Roman period.
3.26. AOC Archaeology have just begun trial trenching on the site of the South Battery, near the Central Dry Dock in Hull. Previous excavations by HFA on the site to the east of the current evaluations, in 2005 and 2007 demonstrated that the remains of this early Stuart artillery fortification survived in good condition under the concrete of the Graving Dock. Parts of the cobbled surfaces associated with the Battery continue into the area
Page 26 of 42 currently being evaluated; hence, yet more of this nationally significant monument can now be seen to be at risk from these proposals. On the south side of Humber Street, part of the 1964 excavation trench in Queens Alley has been relocated, and substantial 16th- century deposits have been shown to survive. Further west, adjoining Queen‟s Street, the rear of one or more buildings opening onto the frontage has been partially exposed. Work is ongoing.
3.27. Archaeological Services WYAS are about to start trial trenching at The Mile, on the north side of Pocklington; this follows an extensive programme of geophysical survey on this site.
General 3.28. The Historic Towns Atlas series is looking at producing a volume devoted to Hull. This would be a major boon to the City, and to our understanding of its history and development. A provisional meeting of the interested parties has been arranged for the beginning of November.
3.29. North Lincolnshire Council has been co-ordinating a £1.9 million Stage 2 HLF project looking at The Isle of Axholme and Hatfield Chase Landscape Partnership; whilst most of the project would fall within North Lincolnshire, other parts include small areas of both South Yorkshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire. Within our area, this includes the southern part of Swinefleet, Goole Moors, Snaith and Cowick Moors and Rawcliffe Moors. As part of this process, they are holding a workshop at Doncaster Museum on 24th October. If Stage 2 is given approval, it would involve amongst other things the appointment of at least one Community Archaeology programme and one Heritage programme; these are expected to run from late 2015 until 2020.
3.30. The ERYC Leader programme has submitted a bid to DEFRA to deliver a Yorkshire Wolds project; this began under the previous Leader programme, and the application is for another phase. They held a workshop at Beverley Racecourse on 16th October.
3.31. The Yorkshire Vernacular Buildings Study Group are carrying out a project in Beverley, as part of a national programme of studying surviving timber-framed buildings in selected English towns: Beverley is one of only a tiny handful of towns chosen for this „Early Fabric in Historic Towns‟ project, co-ordinated by English Heritage from their Swindon office. This current project follows on from an unsuccessful bid for HLF funding for a project to look at timber-framed buildings within the East Riding (which we previously reported to the Board, a couple of years ago). The project began in March 2014, and is destined to finish by the end of 2016. They are currently looking at eight buildings which either have timber framing, or surviving elements such as roof trusses, that are likely to be earlier than about AD 1700 in date. It is hoped that dendrochronological assay can be carried out on samples of timber from these structures. Later in the project, it is hoped to gain access to further buildings, survey them, and carry out documentary searches for the relevant properties. This is an interesting project, which hopefully should give us much more information about these buildings, and refine their
Page 27 of 42 dating; the accompanying tree-ring dating should also greatly enhance the growing body of data for timber use in this area during the medieval and early post-medieval periods.
3.32 Over the course of the summer, we have carried out a number of updates and reviews of our Health & Safety procedures. We have had all the Portable Electrical Appliances re-tested; the Fire Plan for the Building has been revised and updated; and all of the COSHH assessments, and the Manual Handling assessment, have been reviewed.
3.32. A national project, which is reviewing the results of rescue archaeological investigations on the Roman Rural Settlement of England, is slowly working its way northwards through the country; it is being run jointly by the University of Reading and Cotswold Archaeology. Earlier this year, this project reached Yorkshire, and visited all of the SMRs / HERs in the region, in order to gather data on the results of fieldwork in the area during the last couple of decades, in order to see how this fresh information may alter our traditional views of Roman Britain. A workshop presenting some preliminary results for this area was held at the University of York on 15th October; the Powerpoint slides from the presentations can be viewed on the websites of the University of Reading, and Cotswold Archaeology. The intention is to publish the results of the national survey in a series of four volumes in 2016-17.
3.33. We have reported previously to the Board on proposals to split English Heritage into two bodies: a new charitable trust called English Heritage, and a non-departmental government body to be called Historic England. The Government has now approved this formal separation, and the changes will come into effect on 1st April 2015.
3.34. We are very privileged to have an exceedingly rich and diverse archaeological landscape in this area, which tends to respond very well to aerial photographic investigation and recording. During the last 40 years, English Heritage (and one of its predecessors, the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England) have invested huge resources in photographing and mapping much of what can be seen from the air in the East Riding. We have been very fortunate in having had a number of National Mapping Projects, which have mapped successively the Yorkshire Wolds, the Vale of York, parts of Holderness including the Coast, and lately the Hull Valley and the adjacent slopes of the Wolds. Next year, English Heritage hopes to be able to map the remaining parts of Holderness – thus completing the mapping of the whole of the East Riding. This would be a tremendous boon to our understanding of the archaeology of the area, and will doubtless add many new sites to our database of heritage assets. It will be a very significant aid to planning, and to the management and understanding of our area‟s heritage. It will also make the East Riding unique in Britain, for the coverage of its aerial photographic mapping.
4. Officer contact For background information, please contact Dr. D. Evans, Humber Archaeology Partnership, The Old School, Northumberland Avenue, Hull HU2 0LN (tel. 01482 310619).
Page 28 of 42 Agenda Item 6
Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board 31st October 2014
Proposal to revise and update the charging policy for the Humber SMR.
Archaeology Manager
1. Purpose of report and summary
1.1. To report to the Board on proposals to revise and update the charging policy for the Humber SMR, as part of the review process.
Recommendation 2. That the Board approves the revised scale of charges, and the introduction of the proposed new charges.
Page 29 of 42 3. Report
Why are we suggesting a revision to our charging policy at this point? 3.1. The last major overhaul of our charging policy was in October 2008 [Board Minute no. 271, Report no. 126] – though we subsequently discussed the introduction of some potential additional charges in March 2011 [Board Minute no. 345, Report no. 168]. Hence, the bulk of our charges have remained fixed for the last six years, and have not been adjusted to take into account any rises in the subsequent costs of the service.
3.2. So far, this has not presented a major problem, as any potential falls in income derived from individual budget streams have been offset by external income from other streams, such as giving advice on agri-environment schemes. However, as reported previously to the Board, national changes being introduced to how agri-environment schemes will be handled by the Government – and particularly about which schemes would be eligible for payments under the schemes in which archaeological advice from Local Authorities can be paid for – mean that we are probably going to see income from that source decline, both in this year, and in future years.
3.3. To give an example, we are currently paid for offering advice on the Historic Environment implications of Higher Level Entry Farm Environment Plans (or FEPs): the rates for such advice, as set for the whole of the European Union, equate to £75 for schemes of up to 50 hectares, and £150 for schemes of more than 50 hectares. When these were first introduced, this form of income brought in on average a little over £3K per year; so far, this year, we have raised just £300 in the first six months. Whereas in the early years we had been consulted upon upwards of 40 schemes annually (e.g. 44 schemes in a year (in 2011-12), this had dropped to 19 (in 2013-14), and just 3 in the first half of this year. Income from the other main type of paid agri-environment schemes (Energy Crop schemes) has been more erratic, and less reliable; in some years we may get up to five schemes, but in others, perhaps just one.
3.4. In planning for the future, we need to consider how best to make up for the projected decline in income from agri-environment schemes. When we set this year’s budget, we planned for these to contribute £1,700 towards our income target – namely £1,500 from FEPs, and £200 from Energy Crop Schemes; hence, the sums involved are not enormous, and we do expect that we would continue to receive some income from these sources, but it is likely to be substantially reduced from that seen in previous years. We cannot always assume that income received from other budget streams would make up that shortfall, unless we take some positive steps to redress the balance. For these reasons, we are suggesting that we revise our scale of fees and charges, which have not been adjusted for the last six years, and also introduce some new charges. Cumulatively, these changes will maximise our income generation and provide compensation towards any shortfall which would otherwise have resulted from the Government’s changes to agri-environmental policy.
How our various income steams have performed since 2003-4
Page 30 of 42 3.5. We have been subject to external audits since the close of the financial year 2006-7. Where figures are available for individual income streams, these are shown in Table 1. Payments for FEPs were introduced in 2005-6; payments for Energy Crop Schemes followed a couple of years later. We introduced charging for the production of Specifications in June 2007 (Board Minute no. 227, Report no. 105); hence, prior to this date, there would have been no income recorded under this heading. Sales of publications and photographs reached a peak in 2005-6, and have plummeted since then, because we have not produced any new material for sale, and also the local outlets for selling such material have dwindled away.
Table 1. Income performance over the last 12 financial years (because of the different dates of introduction of charges, some income streams did not begin until 3 or 4 years into this cycle)
Year SMR Specification FEPs Energy Publicatio Premises searches s Crop n sales contributio schemes ns 2003-04 £889 - - - £319 £17.060 2004-05 £1,451 - - - £842 £17,570 2005-06 £2,627 - £2,325 - £1300 £17,626 2006-07 £4,739 - £2,700 - £265 £17.947 2007-08 £1,037 £2,900 £600 £120 £170 £18,458 2008-09 £850 £5,550 £4,793 £60 £237 £18.893 2009-10 £840 £5,080 £3,679 £300 £270 £19,950 2010-11 £2,146 £4,730 £5,400 £300 £6 £19,950 2011-12 £3,347 £1,705 £2,700 £180 £0 £19,950 2012-13 £3,680 £2,575 £5,408 £180 £0 £19,950 2013-14 £4,662 £1,579 £2,250 £300 £35 £19,950 2014- £2,890* £1,220* £300* £0* £0* £10,255.50 15* Average £2,388 £2,193 £2,714 £131 £185 £18,846
3.6. We have tried to always set realistic financial targets, and also to spread our income over a number of different headings. This has helped us to be able to cope with the volatility of fluctuations in market demand; as a result, we have been able to meet our overall budgetary targets for income generation in almost every year – including the worst of the recession – even though individual income streams may occasionally have under-performed.
3.7. There are certain overall trends here: The income from SMR searches has varied between £840 and a maximum of £4,739; but, in five of the 11 years has exceeded £2K; in three other years, it has exceeded £1K – dipping below £1K in only the very first year of the cycle (2003- 4), and in the two worst years for this area of the recession (2008-9 and 2009-10). Hence, in most years this budget line should raise at least £1K, and, all being well,
Page 31 of 42 bring in £2K or more. The “average” figure shown in Table 1 has been skewed upwards by two very successful years; whereas the mean would be lower. The income from writing specifications has brought in sums ranging from £1,579 for a full year, to a maximum of £5,550, during the eight years that we have been levying this charge. The initial reason for introducing this charge was to deter spurious and unnecessary demands on officer time – rather than to generate income. The large sums which were raised in the early years of this charge are unlikely to ever be repeated, as many applicants opt instead to commission a Project Design from their contractors. Nevertheless, this charge is proving to be a steady source of income, and in most years will bring in about £1,500 or more; this also provides a useful service for many smaller developers and applicants. The average figure over the eight-year period is £2,193 per year. Income from FEPs has ranged between £600 and £5,408 in a single year; with an average figure over the eight-year period of £2,714. However, the “average” figure is misleading, because changes introduced by Natural England began to kick in last year and will continue: the overall trend is now downwards. Because of the smaller numbers of Higher Level FEPs which are now being processed in this area, we should be realistic and accept that the days of large numbers of such applications being received for comment by the Humber SMR are not going to be repeated under the present scheme conditions for the foreseeable future. Hence, this year’s budgetary target of £1,500 on this particular budget line is unlikely to be exceeded – and, at the present rate of applications, we may fall significantly below it. Income from Energy Crop schemes began in 2007-8, and has varied between £60 and £300 in any given year. This is clearly never going to be a major source of income; but, it is useful for us to have a budget heading to deal with these schemes. Income from the sale of publications and photographs was once a useful stand-by up until the end of 2008-9, but has since dwindled almost into non-existence. The failure to produce any new publications means that demand for products has fallen off enormously. Secondly, we used to be able to market our stock through outreach events, but as many of those no longer take place and any approval for working extra hours to attend these has now stopped, our opportunities for sales have now disappeared. Lastly, the paucity of images that were allowed on our section of the Authority’s website (up until recently) has meant that the demand to reproduce our images is now very low – and this is reflected in our income from this source. We regularly increased the costs of premises contributions, from the two contractors or consultants who occupy the building, up until 2009-10; but, since then, the market for commercial archaeology in the North of England has been very flat, and many contractors have been struggling. Because this is a very competitive market, with far too many contractors chasing relatively small amounts of work, we see little prospect of this picking up in the near future. For those reasons, we have held the premises contributions at a rate which we think that they can afford.
Page 32 of 42 Proposed revisions to the existing charges
3.8. The suggested order of changes is set out in the accompanying table; the increases mostly equate to around 8% on the 2008 charges: The following charges either represent our own existing charges, or mirror those currently in use in other parts of the two Council s(e.g. within Museums or the Archive Services).
Item Current rate Proposed revised charge Staff time £60 per hour + £65 per hour + VAT VAT Specification for a £60 + VAT £65 + VAT Watching Brief Specification for an £125 + VAT £135 + VAT evaluations FEPs up to 50ha £75 + VAT £75 + VAT FEPs over 50ha £150 + VAT £150 + VAT Digital searches in xml £60 + VAT £65 + VAT format (Basic search) Digital searches in xml £100 + VAT £110 + VAT format (Priority search) Digital searches in GIS £60 + VAT £65 + VAT format (Basic search) Digital searches in GIS £100 + VAT £110 + VAT format (Priority search) Set fee for print-outs £20 + VAT £22 + VAT B & W print, 8” x 6” £10 per print + £11 per print + VAT VAT B & W print, 10” x 8” £12 per print + £13 per print + VAT VAT Colour print from slide £9 per print + VAT £10 per print + VAT Digital copies of prints or £12 + VAT £15 + VAT per image slides. {Note: The only images which we can supply by e-mail are low resolution images. High resolution images will be supplied on CD or DVD only, and the cost of the CD or DVD will be extra.] Handling charge £6 + VAT £7 + VAT Price for provision of a - £1 + postage and CD or DVD packaging (see below) Licence for digital £5 per half-day 25p per individual shot [up photography or scanning to a maximum of 10 shots]. with one’s own camera For more than 10 shots, a licence of £6 per half-day will apply. Photocopying by the Currently all 10p Page 33 of 42 customer: per copy A4 B & White copy 10p per sheet A3 B & White copy 15p per sheet A4 Colour copy 20p per sheet A3 Colour copy 25p per sheet Photocopying done by Currently no an officer for the separate rate customer A4 B & White copy 80p per sheet A3 B & White copy 85p per sheet A4 Colour copy 90p per sheet A3 Colour copy 95p per sheet Reproduction fees for publications (books, magazines, journals, and periodicals):* High resolution image In use within £40 reproduction fee + (UK) Museums VAT High resolution image In use within £45 reproduction fee + (overseas) Museums VAT Reproduction fees for websites* Low resolution (UK) In use within £15 per image + VAT Museums Low resolution In use within £20 per image + VAT (overseas) Museums Facility fee for filming In use within £50 per half day video or TV programmes Museums within our premises Talks and Lectures Charge for lecture or talk £25
* The reproduction fee is chargeable on all items reproduced in published works, where the copyright is owned by the Humber Archaeology Partnership; any items so reproduced must acknowledge our copyright.
If you wish to reproduce other items from any documentation supplied by us, then it is your responsibility to obtain the necessary copyright permission from the copyright owners.
Postage rates In addition to the cost of copying, the following postal charges apply:
UK Mainland Europe Rest of the World A4 up to 100g (up £1.50 £3.00 £5.00 to 10 sheets) A4 101-250g (11-40 £2.00 £5.00 £8.00 sheets) Page 34 of 42 A4 251-500g (41-80 £2.50 sheets) A4 501-750g (81- £3.00 120 sheets) A3 (in a tube) £3.00 £10.00 £10.00 CD or DVD £1.50 £3.50 £5.00
Costs for orders for photographic prints, or for overseas orders exceeding 40 sheets will be confirmed during the ordering process.
Proposal to introduce additional charges
3.9.We are finding that several consultants and applicants for larger schemes are asking us now to read and comment upon draft reports, or interim reports – sometimes with the backing of Planning Officers. This means double-handling - as we would later be required to read and comment upon the final submitted versions of a report, as part of an application to discharge an archaeological condition, or in order to identify a subsequent mitigation strategy – and it also leads to tying up substantial parts of officer time. Because draft reports and interim reports have no formal status in the planning process, we are under no obligation to read these, and we would normally just file them. What we propose is that if these consultants or applicants insist that they need our comments on these drafts, then we levy an appropriate charge to cover the officer time involved – based on our hourly rate. We propose a fee of £65 + VAT for a watching brief report; and £135 + VAT for an evaluation report; this reflects the fact that the former could probably be read and commented upon in an hour, whilst the latter might take 2 hours to process. Longer documents such as the complete reports for a major pipeline can be in excess of 100 pages long, and could take a number of hours to read, and so would be best quoted for on an individual case by case basis. The advantages of introducing this charge are two-fold, in that (a) it might bring in extra income, and (b) even if it does not, it might have the added benefit of freeing up officer time by obviating unnecessary requests for the double-handling of reports.
3.10. We are also now often being asked to prepare a trenching plan for consultants and contractors who are preparing their own Written Schemes of Investigation (WSIs) for trial trenching: in this case, we are doing half of the work of producing a specification, whilst not receiving any remuneration for working out where to put the trenches. The contractor, on the other hand, is getting the benefit of our advice for free, and then subsequently charging the client for the preparation of the enabling documentation. What we would suggest is that we provide a digital version of the trench plan, and charge appropriately for the officer time spent in preparing this. We would suggest a fee of £65 + VAT for this service – which equates to one hour of officer time.
3.11. At the moment, our charging policy contains a statement that “a search fee may also be charged for the time spent locating negatives or slides”; in reality, we hardly ever levy this optional charge. Instead of making this an option, we suggest that we introduce a flat universal search and handling fee of £7 + VAT for locating these images; this would be easier to implement and to administer. Page 35 of 42
Likely impact of these changes
3.12. We currently raise £4,745 per year in external income from the various fees and charges set out in Table 1 (excluding the premises contributions). If, as predicted, the income from offering advice on agri-environmental schemes either continues to fall or remains very flat, then we need to start looking at other options to make good that shortfall. We have not carried out any major revisions to our charging policy for six years; hence, we can justify these changes as they take account of the inflation which has occurred during the intervening period. We have also taken the opportunity to rationalise and tidy up our charging policy, and to bring it in line with those of other Council services.
3.13. Individually, none of the proposed amendments outlined above is likely to generate substantial sums of money, but, cumulatively, these revisions and rationalisations will hopefully help to make up for the projected shortfall mentioned above. We shall not know how successful any of these would be, until they have been introduced, and we can see what the likely level of take-up would be over a two-year period; however, the hope would be that they would also lead to a modest increase in income to the service.
The “Do Nothing” option 3.14. The advantages of making these changes at this point in the year are that they will enable us to prepare the budget proposals in time for the February meeting of the Joint Board with more clarity. They would provide more certainty about our income levels continuing to match our projected expenditure.
3.15. If we choose to leave our scales of charges and fees unchanged, then our income levels are likely to progressively decline – firstly, as a result in inflation, and, secondly, as a result of the changes which Natural England are introducing to their handling of applications for agri-environment schemes. Left unchecked, the cumulative effects of declining income in future years would inevitably impact upon the levels of service provision and service quality which we could provide, and also affect the level of the contributions needed from the two partner authorities.
3.16. What we are asking for is approval to adjust and enhance our charging policy, so that we can meet the challenges which lie ahead, without necessarily imposing any extra financial burdens on either of our two partner authorities. By raising the additional funding from external income, we can hopefully redress the projected shortfall, and perhaps even bring in a small surplus. This would represent Best Value for both authorities, and adhere to the tenets of Good Practice.
Recommendations 3.17. That the Board approves the revised scale of charges, and the introduction of the proposed new charges.
Page 36 of 42 4. Officer contact For background information, please contact Dr. D. Evans, Humber Archaeology Partnership, The Old School, Northumberland Avenue, Hull HU2 0LN (tel. 01482 310619).
Page 37 of 42
Page 38 of 42 Agenda Item 7
For Information Only
Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board 31st October 2014
Changes to the hours of the Administrative Officer post.
Archaeology Manager
1. Purpose of report and summary
1.1. To report to the Board on the outcome of one of the holders of the Administrative Officer post taking voluntary early retirement at the end of August; the costs of this post are shared between the Humber SMR and Humber Field Archaeology (HFA). What was formerly a full-time post has now been reduced to 0.8 of a FTE post; and because of the rigid application of a percentage formula for apportioning the costs between the Humber SMR and HFA budgets, the hours of work for both sections will alter: the number of hours funded by the Humber SMR would be marginally reduced, whilst those funded by HFA would slightly increase.
2. FOR INFORMATION ONLY.
Page 39 of 42 3. Report
3.1. The Administrative Officer post was originally established within the former County Council, and transferred to the Partnership in April 1996. When the Partnership was sub- divided in 1997, at the insistence of North Lincolnshire Council, into the two separate sections of the Humber SMR and HFA – each with its own budget – the funding of the Administrative Officer post was apportioned equally to the two sections: 0.5 of the post was dedicated to the Humber SMR and was funded from the budget of the joint archaeology service, whilst the other 0.5 of the post was funded by HFA through externally-generated income. Some years ago, the post became a Job Share.
3.2. The 50:50 funding arrangement changed two years ago, when Hull undertook a staffing review of HFA, and reduced the HFA funding to just 0.2 of a post.
3.3. During the last two financial years, the Joint Archaeology Board has given approval to the Humber SMR to use part of its earmarked reserve to purchase additional hours for the Administrative Officer, to assist with the enhancement and improvement of the joint service (e.g. with the production of an annual newsletter, and the enhancement of our web-pages). However, on the last occasion when we sought approval for such funding (at its meeting of 7th February 2014: Board Minute no. 436, Report no. 209), the Board expressed its view that this situation needed to be sorted out on a more permanent basis, and that we should report back to the Board on the outcome.
3.4. At the end of August 2014, one of the job-share holders of this post took voluntary early retirement, and so her part of the post has now been deleted. Hence, instead of a full 37 hour weekly post, the post is now reduced to 0.8 FTE, or 29.6 hrs per week. Hence, the overall costs of the post have been recalculated, and apportioned accordingly.
3.5. This gave the Management Committee an opportunity to review the resourcing of this post, in the light of the recent retirement, and also to review the apportionment of the costs of the post between the two sections of the Partnership.
3.6. It has jointly been decided that a fairer apportionment of the costs of the post would be for the Humber SMR to pay for 60% of the costs, whilst the remaining 40% would be met from external income generated by Humber Field Archaeology.
3.7. The allocated budget to the Humber SMR for this year would have covered 0.5 of the post, or 18.5 hours. Under the new arrangement, this would fall to 17.76 hours – a reduction of 0.74 hours. This would represent a small budgetary saving.
3.8. HFA currently pays for 0.2 of the post, or 7.4 hours. Under the new arrangement, this would rise to 11.84 hours – an increase of 4.44 hours per week. This is a much fairer apportionment, and would meet the needs of that section more accurately.
3.9. We are also introducing a system for monitoring more closely how the hours of the post are expended, respectively on duties for the Humber SMR, duties for HFA, and jointly shared duties. In this way, we would have detailed statistics to inform any future apportionment of costs. Page 40 of 42
4. Officer contact For background information, please contact Dr. D. Evans, Humber Archaeology Partnership, The Old School, Northumberland Avenue, Hull HU2 0LN (tel. 01482 310619).
Page 41 of 42
Page 42 of 42