Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board Venue: Room 80, The Guildhall, Hull Date: Monday 29th June 2015 Time: 10.00am.
AGENDA
1. Apologies. To receive apologies for those Members who are unable to attend the meeting. 2. Election of Chair for the meeting. 3. Minutes of the meeting of 6th February 2015 (enclosed), and matters arising. To agree the minutes as a true and correct record; to discuss any matters arising from those minutes. 4. Annual Return for the Humber Archaeology Partnership for the financial year ended 31st March 2015 (report enclosed). To approve the annual return and statement of accounts 5. Annual Governance Statement 2014-2015, and the actions which we are now required to take (report enclosed. Please note that there are eight separate sub- sections, each of which must be separately confirmed and minuted. The HAP JB 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
1 6. Manager's progress report on the work of the Partnership during the previous financial year, 2014-2015. (Report enclosed) 7. Manager's progress report on the work of the Partnership during the current financial year, 2015-2016. (Report enclosed) 8. Review of the staffing structure, resourcing, and future work programme of the Joint Archaeology Service. (Report enclosed). 9. Proposal to use part of our earmarked reserve for the employment of a Modern Apprentice. (Report enclosed). 10. Briefing Note on the archaeological implications of the proposed A63 highway improvements along Castle Street, Hull. (Report enclosed). 11. Any other business. 12. Date and venue of the next Board meeting. .
Tea and coffee will be available at the meeting.
2 Agenda Item 4
Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board 29th June 2015
The Annual Return for the Humber Archaeology Partnership for 2014-2015
Archaeology Manager
1. Purpose of report and summary
1.1. To report to the Board on the Annual Return for the Partnership, for the last financial year (2014 – 2015). Copies of the Annual Return will be presented to the Board at the meeting.
Recommendations 2.1. That the Board approves the Annual Return. 2.2. That the Chair signs the top copy of the Annual Return, to confirm the Board’s approval, so that the completed document can be submitted to the external audior, as required by the Audit Commission.
3 Agenda Item 5
Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board 26th June 2015
Annual Governance Statement for 2014-2015, 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 Annual Governance Statement for the Partnership, for the last financial year (2014 – 2015), and on the actions which, as a joint service, we are now required to take.
Recommendations 2.1 That the Board approves the Governance Statement, and confirms and minutes 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
4 3. Report 3.1. This will be the second and final year in which our accounts have been audited by PKF Littlejohn, as auditors appointed by the former Audit Commission. We were notified in late autumn that as from 2015-16, we would no longer be included in the list of Small Bodies whose accounts must be subject to such external audit; however, as this change was introduced part-way through the financial year 2014-15, we would be expected to complete our audit for that particular year under the existing system. A copy of their certified Annual Return is included as agenda Item 4, above.
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).
3.3. The Board needs 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 former 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.
Recommendation 3.4. 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 Joint Archaeology Board 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
5
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).
6
For information only Agenda Item 6
Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board 29th June 2015
Report on the work of the Partnership during the previous 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 previous financial year (2014 – 2015).
2. FOR INFORMATION ONLY.
7 3. Report
Curatorial Section (the Humber SMR)
3.1 Development Control work was steady, despite the overall numbers of planning applications appearing on the weekly lists being slightly less than the numbers recorded last year (5548, compared with 5767; see section 1.16, below); the recommendations for actions advised remain similar to recent years. Other aspects of our planning-related casework (e.g. Forward and Strategic Planning) remain at similar levels to last year. Developer enquiries continue to be buoyant.
3.2 As previously reported, the numbers of agri-environment schemes submitted to us have decreased from the levels in previous years; this is in line with changes introduced at national level, and may well continue into the current financial year.
3.3 .A WSI was submitted for the publication stage of the Westermost Rough Onshore Cable Route, representing the last stage of this project; a publication draft was subsequently submitted in April of this year. This project has run very smoothly.
3.4 The other major offshore wind-farm project, which also had a substantial onshore programme of works was the Humber Gateway Onshore Cable Route; despite having commenced a couple of years earlier than the Westermost Rough project, its archaeological component has been beset by more delays. Nevertheless, after several incomplete drafts, a revised draft was submitted to us in late January, and we hope that this too may soon be in a stage where it can also progress towards publication.
3.5 During the course of the year, we were extensively involved in ongoing discussions and negotiations about the proposed A63 road scheme improvements along Castle Street, Hull, and the proposed extension of the road into a substantial part of the detached Holy Trinity burial ground on the south side of Castle Street. A major scheme of archaeological work was prepared for the latter, and a Diocesan Faculty was obtained for the work, on the expectation that trial excavations would begin in autumn 2014; a specialist workshop was organised and run, to discuss and inform the sampling strategy for this work, during the summer of 2014. In the event, the start of the whole scheme had to be deferred, for reasons other than archaeology [new Government regulations about levels of air pollution meant that far more data were now needed before the official application for a Consent Order for the road could be made to Central Government, and this meant that far more measurements would now be needed, and these would have to be carried out over a number of months]; it is likely that the revised application will be made by the Highways Agency in early autumn 2015, and that the archaeology programme would commence then. In the meantime, the Highways Agency has appointed a successful civil engineering contractor, and they in turn have now appointed an approved archaeological contractor. A separate part of the scheme involves the construction of a new footbridge over the A63, near to Princes Dock Street; preliminary discussions about
8 both the design of the bridge, and how to address or offset the impacts of its foundations, also began during the course of 2014-15, and are still ongoing.
3.6 Work began on the excavations in advance of the construction of the Brough Relief Road in April 2014, and continued into late June. A substantial complex of later Iron Age and Romano-British enclosures and settlement features was uncovered in an area, at some distance to the south-east of the Roman walled town, south of the modern railway line, and relatively close to what would have been the Roman shoreline of the Humber. This is in an area which was previously not known to have produced any evidence for Romano-British activity. Although the on-site works were completed some 11 months ago, we have yet to see any Assessment Report on the findings – or even any Interim Report.
3.7 Post-excavation assessment is understood to have continued on the Beverley Southern Relief Road during the course of this year. The on-site works were completed in December 2013; however, we have yet to see any Assessment Report on the work. Part of the reasons for the lengthy delay may be that two different archaeological contractors were engaged on different parts of the route – one on a single discrete area for the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, and a different company working on other sections of the route on behalf of the civil engineering contractor (Birse). Apparently, the archaeological consultants for the Council are hoping to collate the two different sets of results into a single combined Report.
3.8 Discussions took place over the archaeological implications of proposed road improvements to the A165 in the town centre of Bridlington.
3.9 Detailed discussions took place over the archaeological implications of the Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme (WaDFAS) during the course of the year. Following an initial DBA, the whole route was subject to geophysical survey, and a programme of monitored topsoil stripping started in the early months of 2015. The work in advance of the proposed construction of new lagoons for holding flood waters is starting to reveal a substantial amount of previously unknown Iron Age and Romano-British archaeological deposits and features.
3.10 We made detailed comments on the proposed East Riding Local Plan and its accompanying Strategic Allocations document, in the lead up to the Public Examination during the autumn; we subsequently commented on the Final Amendments, following the Inspector’s report.
3.11 We had detailed discussions with National Grid plc over the Statement of Common Ground for the proposed Carbon Capture and Storage Gas Pipeline. We also commented to the Planning Inspectorate on the archaeological implications of the proposed Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline, as part of the PINS process.
3.12 The University of Hull undertook two research excavations during the summer of 2014 – one on the Wolds, and one near to Melton. They subsequently informed us
9 that they would be applying for funding for a second season of research excavations at the Melton site; however, we have had no further news as to whether this application was successful.
3.13 We were consulted by the then English Heritage [now Historic England], and we commented upon the proposed scheduling of a multi-period crop-mark site at Church Land, to the north of Hornsea. The site has since been scheduled.
3.14 We commented on three draft Good Practice Guidance Notes, which were produced by the then English Heritage last July. These were intended to replace the Best Practice Planning guidance for the Historic Environment, which was originally produced to accompany PPS 5 – which has now been superseded by the NPPF.
3.15 Natural England announced an end to their schemes for paying for uploading data onto their SHINE dataset [the Selective Heritage Inventory for Natural England]. They initially set a final date of 30th September 2014 for uploading data; but, it has still proved possible to subsequently upload data for fresh sites.
3.16 The Humber SMR produced another issue of its digital Newsletter in late autumn, and this has been distributed to those on our subscription list.
3.17 The detailed statistics for development proposals and SMR enquiries for the period from 1st April 2014 to the 31st March 2015 are as follows:
Average per week calculated over the 51 week period. 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015
Planning Applications Taken from weekly lists received between 1/4/14 to 31/03/15
ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Total number of applications on weekly lists 4508 1040 5548 109
Those checked against the SMR 1834 331 2165 42
Number downloaded 243 35 278 5
Casework received between 1/4/14 to 31/3/15
ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
10 ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Developer Enquiries 88 16 104 2 (pre-planning and pre-land purchase)
Planning Applications 341 41 382 7 (Outline, Reserved matters, Full Applications)
Heritage Management 14 13 27 1 (Listed Building Consent, Conservation Area Works and Ecclesiastical Exemption)
Strategic/Forward Planning 2 - 2 <1 (Development Briefs, Conservation Area Appraisals, Local Plans and SPG’s)
Statutory Consultations 32 10 42 1 (Utilities Applications, Environment Agency and Highways Consultations)
Agri-environment schemes 11 - 11 <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 31/03/15
Action Advised ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Borehole 1 - 1 <1
Building Recording 22 44 66 1
Desk Based Assessment 17 1 18 <1
Evaluation – all categories 196 9 205 4
Evaluation by geophysical survey 66 4 70 1
11 Action Advised ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Evaluation by monitored topsoil strip 66 3 69 1
Evaluation by trial trenching 64 2 66 1
Preservation by Record 1 1 2 <1
Mitigation 6 2 8 <1
No Impact 146 16 162 3
Preservation in situ 8 2 10 <1
Publication 2 - 2 <1
Record earthworks - - - -
Watching briefs 186 8 194 4
Conditions requested 254 38 292 6
Refusals recommended 8 2 10 <1
Other Casework ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Total number of casework received 519 82 601 12
Reports received 108 6 114 2
Project Designs received 145 19 164 3
Fieldwork Commencing 102 9 111 2
Sites monitored and recorded on planning 13 - 13 <1 database
Specifications prepared 19 2 21 1
Site visits made to assess site conditions 1 - 1 <1
Discharge of conditions 117 7 124 2
Total number of casework files closed 489 65 554 11
12 Amended proposals received 38 3 41 1
Submission of details received 130 3 133 3
Variation of Condition 29 - 29 1
General enquiries relating to Consultations 66 6 72 1
Percentage of responses made within agreed 95% deadlines
Non-planning related ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Forestry applications 4 - 4 <1
Environmental Stewardship Applications 3 - 3 <1
Energy Crop Scheme applications/Short - - - - Rotation coppice applications
Hedgerow Notifications 4 - 4 <1
Demolition notifications - 22 22 1
Public Enquiries to the Sites and Monuments Records Record Enquiries received between 1/4/14 and 31/03/15 Non planning related
Public Enquiries ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Visitors to Office 108 14 122 2
Visitors to events 174 - 174 3
Telephone Enquiries 40 13 53 1
Letters - - - -
Email 66 35 101 2
13 Public Enquiries ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Visitors to Office 108 14 122 2
Visitors to events 174 - 174 3
Telephone Enquiries 40 13 53 1
Letters - - - -
Email 66 35 101 2
Total Users 388 62 276 + 5 + 3 at 174 at events = 8 events = 450
SMR Enhancement taken place between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2015 Decimals rounded to one decimal place.
Type of enhancement on digital ERYC KUHCC Total Average % of record record per week Number of new monuments 23 5 28 1 0.2 records created Number of monument records 11413 83 1496 29 8.2 amended on digital record Number of new event records 100 1 101 2 4.6 created Number of event records 231 16 247 5 11.2 amended on the digital record Number of new source records 237 20 257 5 2.4 created Number of source records 948 34 982 19 9.0 amended on digital record Number of new designation 338 2 340 7 7.8 records created Number of designation records 443 6 449 9 10.2 modified on digital record Total number of new or 3733 167 3900 77 10.9 modified digital records
Enhancement on digital ERYC KUHCC Total Average % of record consultation record per week
14 Number of new consultation 521 80 601 12 3.1 records created Number of consultation records 1773 266 2039 40 10.4 amended on digital record Total number of new or 2294 346 2640 52 13.5 modified digital records
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 headings from the relevant information from above.
Planning applications – weekly lists The number of planning applications appearing on the weekly lists has decreased from those seen for last year, with an average of 115 per week last year, and an average of 109 per week for this year. We have also seen a decrease in the number of planning applications checked per week, from an average of 44 per week for this period last year, to an average of 42 per week for this year. The average number of applications we are downloading has in turn decreased from an average of seven per week last year, to an average of five per week for this year.
Casework received The number of developer enquiries received has remained at an average of two per week, which is the same amount seen last year. However, the number of planning applications upon which we have commented has decreased from an average of nine per week, to seven per week. The categories for Heritage Management, Strategic and Forward Planning have remained at similar levels to those seen last year. However, we have seen a marked increase in the number of Statutory Consultations from 14 last year, to 42 for this year. We have also recorded a decrease in the number of agri-environment schemes, from 32 for last year, to 11 for this year.
Action advised The type of action advised has in most cases stayed as a similar average to those seen last year. We have slightly decreased the number of monitored topsoil strips requested, which has reduced from an average of two per week, to one per week. We have seen a slight increase in the number of consultations that we have said will have no archaeological impact, from four per week last year, to three per week this year. There has been a decrease in the number of watching briefs recommended, from an average of five per week last year, to four per week for this year. We have also seen a decrease in the overall number of conditions requested, from seven per week last year, to six per week this year.
The remaining categories for borehole requests, building recording, evaluations (all categories combined), geophysical surveys, desk-based assessments, preservation by record, mitigation, publication, refusals recommended, and recording earthworks have all stayed comparable to the levels that we recorded last year. Overall, there has been a slight
15 decrease in the overall numbers of planning casework that has been received, from an average of 13 per week last year, to an average of 12 per week for this year.
Other Casework We have seen a decrease in the number of fieldwork reports received from an average of three per week, to two per week. The number of project designs received for comment and approval has remained at an average of three per week. There has also been a slight decrease in the average number of pieces of archaeological fieldwork being undertaken, with an average of two pieces of archaeological work commencing each week. The numbers of monitoring visits and site visits that have been made to relevant types of fieldwork have remained at similar levels to that seen last year. The level of specifications requested for us to prepare has also stayed at a similar level to that seen last year. There has been a decrease in the number of planning applications that we have recommended for discharge of the archaeological condition, from an average of three per week last year, to two per week for this year. We have however maintained the number of casework files that have been closed at an average of 11 per week.
The figures for the number of submissions of detail applications have increased from an average of two per week last year, to three per week for this year. The numbers for amended proposals and variation of conditions have remained at similar levels to those seen last year. We have seen a decrease in the number of general enquiries that relate to consultations and are not covered by other categories outlined separately, and this has decreased from an average of two per week for last year, to one per week for this year. We have responded to 95% of planning application consultations within the agreed timescales: this is in line with our team target.
Non-planning related consultations The number of Environmental Stewardship applications has decreased from 19 last year, to 3 for this year. Energy crop schemes/short rotation coppice, forestry planting schemes and hedgerow notifications all remain at similar levels to those seen last year. The number of demolition notices in Hull has decreased from 36 for last year, to 21 for this year.
Public enquiries On the public access side, we have seen an increase in the average number of enquiries in most categories, to those levels recorded for last year. The number of visitors to the office has increased from an average of one per week last year, to two per week this year. Similar numbers of letters, telephone and email enquiries have all been recorded, as well as similar numbers of attendees at events.
We have seen a decrease in the amount of enhancement that has taken place, from 15% last year, to 10% this year; but, this simply reflects the loss of the Fixed-Term SMR Office Assistant post, that had been in place for the majority of 2013-2014, and which had been such a major boon for the team. Nevertheless, despite this loss, the 10% achieved for this year is clearly well above the 3% team target for enhancement, and is a very creditable achievement, which reflects well on our performance. A vast number of
16 records needs to be modified or created to achieve this percentage, as we currently have in excess of 35,700 records on the digital record. This equates to around 77 records being created or amended each week on the SMR (not including DC and other consultation records) by the three relevant officers.
In addition to this, an average of 52 consultation records are also being created or amended each week, which is in line with the numbers seen last year.
The above statistics are based on the work of the four archaeological officers, and cover the work for Hull and East Riding as a whole. These statistics have not been split into the work for two differing authorities, and do not account for the administrative support we received from one half-time officer.
3.18. The figures for expenditure and income for the Humber SMR from 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015 are shown in Agenda Item 4 (the Annual Return).
Our earmarked reserve now stands at £24,405.
Humber Field Archaeology
3.19. The Senior Illustrator, Mike Frankland, who has been with the Unit for most of the period since 1979, took early retirement at the end of March 2015.
3.20. Work on the analysis phase for the Caythorpe GSF project continued throughout the year. A series of additional radiocarbon dates was obtained for some of the burials; these have clarified some of the remaining queries over phasing.
3.21. The draft final report for the Historic Landscape Characterisation project was submitted to English Heritage for their comments at the end of May 2014. The initial comments from one of the referees were at variance with some of the approaches previously suggested by EH during their project monitoring, and it was recognised that there were perhaps differences in the various approaches being advocated for HLC projects in different parts of the country. A suitable way forward was subsequently agreed, and additional funding was allocated to cover any additional time needed to carry out additional work to satisfy the referee’s comments. This is now due to be completed during 2015-16.
3.22. The last of the Phase 3 reports for the Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment were submitted to English Heritage in May 2014 for their comments. The final versions of the amended reports were completed in the later part of this financial year.
3.23. Excavations took place at the Dryham Lane quarry, North Cave from spring 2014 until the present. They are looking at areas of enclosures and ditches of the later Iron Age and RB periods, some of which are close to the settlement excavated in 1986-7. Some of
17 the finds include stamped Parisian and East Coast wares, whilst earlier finds had included a large dump of Roman pottery wasters, and a basket-lined well.
3.24. 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. A second phase of topsoil strips, in advance of a large residential development, began in April 2015.
3.25. In March 2015 HFA undertook evaluations within the Roman walled town of Brough at 3 Grassdale Park. This confirmed the line of the Roman Town Wall around the south part of the town, and exposed a well-preserved section of an internal rampart behind the wall, with the remains of a Roman stone-walled building set at right-angles to it. Further back, part of a second Roman stone-walled building, with an external stone yard surface was encountered. As this site lay firmly inside the Scheduled Monument, these evaluations have informed the subsequent foundation design of the proposed new development.
3.26. HFA produced a number of detailed desk-based assessments, including for sites in Hedon, Brough and Elloughton.
3.27. 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. 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.]
18 439. 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. 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 Alleviation Schemes (COPFAS): Land west of Dane Park Road, Orchard Park. Assessment of archaeological potential. 462. 463. Archaeological investigations on land north of Flemingate, Beverley, East Riding of Yorkshire. 464. An archaeological evaluation on land at West Farm, Foston Lane, Beeford, East Riding of Yorkshire. 465. 466. 467. Archaeological trial excavations on proposed extensions to clay extraction site, Hemingbrough, North Yorkshire.
19 468. An archaeological evaluation on land at Welton Low Road, Elloughton, East Riding of Yorkshire. 469. An archaeological evaluation on North Street, Driffield, East Riding of Yorkshire. 470. Archaeological evaluation and recording on land off Burma Drive, Kingston upon Hull. 471. 472. An archaeological evaluation at New Grange Farm, Clayfield Lane, Shiptonthorpe, East Riding of Yorkshire.
3.28. Thirty-one reports were produced during the financial year (1st April 2014 to 31st March 3015), bringing the HFA watching brief reports series up to no. 1431.
Work by external contractors 3.29. On Site Archaeology undertook excavations at numerous sites, including The Groves and at The Balk, Pocklington; also at Pinfold Lane, Bridlington; at Wicstun Way, Market Weighton; at Burtonfield Barns, Stamford Bridge; and at Victoria Road School, Driffield. We are still waiting for any report on the monitoring of the improvements which took place in Saturday Market, Beverley, a couple of years ago; not even an interim has been produced – but, as this work falls outside of the planning process, we can only request compliance with the previously agreed WSI, and have no powers to enforce compliance.
3.30. CFA undertook excavations at Green Park, Newport, and evaluations at the Fraisthorpe wind-farm.
3.31. Archaeological Services WYAS completed their on-site work on the assessment stage of the Westermost Rough cable route in June 2014, and then produced a publication draft of the whole project. They also undertook pre-determination trial trenching at The Mile, on the north side of Pocklington; and at Ashcourt Drive, Hornsea.
3.32. AOC Archaeology undertook open area excavations on the site of the Brough Relief Road. They also undertook trial trenching on the site of the South Battery, near the Central Dry Dock in Hull; and pre-determination evaluation on a proposed wind-farm site near Tibthorpe.
3.33. MAP Archaeological Practice undertook trial trenching at Burnby Lane, Pocklington, in summer 2014, and later started open area excavation and topsoil stripping on the same site. They have also undertaken numerous topsoil strips and watching briefs on other sites.
3.34. York Archaeological Trust undertook excavations at Fort Hall, Bridlington, in June 2014.
20 3.35. East Riding Archaeology have undertaken numerous topsoil strips (e.g. on agricultural buildings near Sewerby, and at numerous wind-turbine sites) and watching briefs throughout the area, and also some photographic recording surveys of historic buildings.
3.36. PastSearch has carried out a topsoil strip at Caville Hall, near Howden.
3.37. The University of Hull and the East Riding Archaeological Society carried out joint research excavations at a villa site near Melton, and at a prehistoric site on a hill-top at Nunburnholme Wold.
3.38. Network Archaeology produced a draft Analysis Report for the Easington to Ganstead Gas Pipeline project.
3.39. Wessex Archaeology undertook some trial trenching at The Ings on Salthouse Road, Hull. They also produced several drafts of the Assessment Report for the Humber Gateway offshore wind-farm cable route project.
General 3.40. 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. Three meetings of the interested parties have taken place, and another is planned shortly.
3.41. English Heritage (now Historic England) agreed to fund the publication of a paper on the Town Defences of Hull, which would include the publication of the various excavations at the Beverley Gate. Half of the money was paid at the end of the last financial year, with the remainder falling in the new financial year (2015-16).
3.42. The Yorkshire Vernacular Buildings Study Group, working in tandem with English Heritage, began work on one of the pilot projects in the Early Fabric in Historic Towns Project, looking at the survival of evidence for timber-framed buildings in Beverley. This has involved a number of historic buildings being subject to detailed building recording for the first time; in other cases, dendrochronological assay of timbers has been funded by English Heritage in the hope that the presumed dating of some buildings can be refined.
3.43. We worked with the national Roman Rural Settlement project to ensure that information form our area was supplied to and incorporated within their national survey. This was a project co-ordinated by the University of Reading and Cotswold Archaeology, on behalf of English Heritage (now Historic England). Details of the findings of the project can be found on the web-sites of these two institutions.
3.44. A new Fire Plan was produced for the premises.
21 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).
22
For information only Agenda Item 7
Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board 29th June 2015
Report on the work of the Partnership during the current financial year 2015-2016
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 (2015 – 2016).
2. FOR INFORMATION ONLY.
23 3. Report
Curatorial Section (the Humber SMR)
3.1 The Archaeology Manager will step down at the end of July. This provides a timely opportunity to undertake the overall review of the work, structure and resourcing of the Humber SMR – as previously discussed at the Joint Board meeting of October 2013 (see also Agenda Item 8, below).
3.2 Development Control work has continued to be steady.
3.3 We have commented on the final amendments to the East Riding Local Plan, and its accompanying Strategic Allocations document, in the light of the Inspector’s report on the Public Examination stage.
3.4 We have commented upon the archaeological implications of the Flood Risk Management Plans for the East Riding, and also on the River Hull Integrated Catchment Strategy.
3.5 We have continued to be involved with the ongoing discussions about the archaeological implications of the various components of the major A63 Castle Street project, and have attended numerous meetings on this subject. Most of these have concentrated on aspects of the proposed archaeological interventions within the Holy Trinity burial ground on the south side of Castle Street, or about the design and site of the proposed new footbridge across the A63, near Warehouse No. 6. Since we last reported to the Board, the Holy Trinity burial ground has been fenced off, and cleared of undergrowth. All of the gravestones within the part of the burial ground to be affected by the road improvements have now been recorded, lifted, and taken away for safe storage. A ground-penetrating radar survey of the graveyard took place in April, but, apparently, did not reveal a great deal. Trial trenching within the graveyard is due to start in early July, and to continue through the summer. Trial trenching on a second site, associated with the proposed new footbridge is currently being planned, and may also take place over the course of the summer.
3.6 We have also been involved in the discussions about the archaeological implications of the major improvements proposed for Holy Trinity parish church in Hull, and the removal of parts of its perimeter wall, to open up Kingston Square. A major survey of all of the gravestones has been completed, in preparation for these works. Small-scale trial trenching began in selected areas earlier this month.
3.7 Work on the archaeological monitoring along the route of the Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme (WaDFAS) began at the end of the last financial year, and is now in full swing around the north-eastern limits of Hull. We have been working closely with the consultant and the contractors to ensure that this rolls out as smoothly and efficiently as possible. So far, a substantial amount of previously unrecorded Iron Age and Romano-British features and deposits have been identified and investigated in the Willerby and Haltemprice areas, whilst the finds so far have included substantial
24 portions of prehistoric handmade pottery vessels, a complete Neolithic polished stone axe, and a prehistoric human burial. One of the latest finds to turn up is part of an Early Bronze Age cordoned urn, which would have held a cremation. Some 30 archaeologists are currently working on this project.
3.8 In the light of recent excavations on an Iron Age site near Pocklington, Historic England are undertaking a review of the evidence from crop-marks and from recent fieldwork on various sites around the edges of the town.
3.9 As previously reported, Natural England are introducing national changes to the funding of Historic Environment (HE) advice for certain classes of agri-environment schemes. They are currently consulting on a new set of rules for Countryside Stewardships, which are expected to be introduced this autumn. The changes include the introduction of a new category of Mid Tier applications, which would be voluntary 5- year Agreements – some of which will benefit the Historic Environment; DEFRA estimate that there might be as many as 5,000 applications for the whole country in 2015 – and that most of these would replace the old Entry Level Schemes which are due to expire this year – however, it is not known how many of these would have HE implications. The existing Higher Tier schemes will be replaced by a new set of Higher Tier schemes, with slightly different rules which will set a higher standard. In addition, the agreement areas covered under Countryside Stewardship are likely to be significantly smaller than the complete holdings, and may typically represent only between 15% and 30% of a holding. Hence, there would continue to be scope for being paid for some provision of advice on the Historic Environment implications of applications, but we do not yet know how this will affect applications in our area. Lastly, a new set of payments is being recommended, but has not yet been ratified. If this were to be approved, then the rates would rise in most cases – in all but the smallest category of application area; however, as the applications for which we have previously been consulted tended to be the larger areas, it is unlikely that our pro rata rate would actually go down – but, it would all really depend upon how many applications in our area would actually be referred to us Quite what the implications for us, in terms of likely income generation, may be is uncertain at this stage; but, the likelihood is that, as previously reported, the new schemes would not bring in the levels of income previously seen before 2013.
3.10 The detailed statistics for development proposals and SMR enquiries for the period from 1st April 2015 to the 31st May 2015 are:
SITES AND MONUMENTS RECORD STATISTICS Average per week calculated over the 8 week period. 1st April 2015 to 31st May 2015
25 Planning Applications Taken from weekly lists received between 1/4/15 to 31/5/15
ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Total number of applications on weekly lists 783 148 931 116
Those checked against the SMR 310 52 362 45
Number downloaded 41 3 44 6
Casework received between 1/4/15 to 31/5/15
ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Developer Enquiries 3 3 6 1 (pre-planning and pre-land purchase)
Planning Applications 59 5 64 8 (Outline, Reserved matters, Full Applications)
Heritage Management 3 - 3 <1 (Listed Building Consent, Conservation Area Works and Ecclesiastical Exemption)
Strategic/Forward Planning - - - - (Development Briefs, Conservation Area Appraisals, Local Plans and SPG’s)
Statutory Consultations 2 - 2 <1 (Utilities Applications, Environment Agency and Highways Consultations)
Agri-environment schemes 1 - 1 <1 (Environmental Stewardship, Forestry applications, energy crops scheme, short rotation coppice and Hedgerow removals)
26 Detailed Analysis of Consultations replied to between 1/4/15 and 31/5/15
Action Advised ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Borehole - - - -
Building Recording 1 2 3 <1
Desk Based Assessment 3 - 3 <1
Evaluation – all categories 38 2 40 5
Evaluation by geophysical survey 14 - 14 2
Evaluation by monitored topsoil strip 11 - 11 1
Evaluation by trial trenching 13 2 15 2
Preservation by Record - - - -
Mitigation 1 - 1 -
No Impact 15 3 18 2
Preservation in situ - - - -
Publication - - - -
Record earthworks - - - -
Watching briefs 34 - 34 4
Conditions requested 54 2 56 7
Predetermination work recommended 15 - 15 2
Refusals recommended - 2 2 <1
Other Casework ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Total number of casework received 83 7 90 11
Reports received 19 3 22 3
Project Designs received 19 5 24 3
27 Fieldwork Commencing 16 1 17 2
Sites monitored and recorded on planning 3 - 3 - database
Specifications prepared 1 - 1 -
Site visits made to assess site conditions 1 - 1 -
Discharge of conditions 26 - 26 3
Total number of casework files closed 99 5 104 13
Amended proposals received 4 - 4 1
Submission of details received 12 - 12 2
Variation of Condition 9 - 9 1
General enquiries relating to Consultations 14 - 14 2
Percentage of responses made within agreed 96% deadlines
Non-planning related ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Forestry applications - - - -
Environmental Stewardship Applications - - - -
Energy Crop Scheme applications/Short - - - - Rotation coppice applications
Hedgerow Notifications 1 - 1 <1
Demolition notifications - - - -
Public Enquiries to the Sites and Monuments Records Record Enquiries received between 1/4/15 and 30/04/15 Non planning related
28 Public Enquiries ERYC KUHCC Total Average per week
Visitors to Office 17 1 18 2
Visitors to events - - - -
Telephone Enquiries 9 1 10 1
Letters - - - -
Email 11 5 16 2
Total Users 37 7 44 6
SMR Enhancement taken place between 1st April 2015 and 31st May 2015 Decimals rounded to one decimal place.
Type of enhancement on digital ERYC KUHCC Total Average % of record record per week Number of new monuments 4 1 5 1 0.02% records created Number of monument records 842 76 918 115 5.0% amended on digital record Number of new event records 22 3 25 3 1.1% created Number of event records 79 3 82 10 3.7% amended on the digital record Number of new source records 43 3 46 6 0.4% created Number of source records 107 3 110 14 1.0% amended on digital record Number of new designation 149 7 156 20 3.5% records created Number of designation records 169 7 176 22 3.9% modified on digital record Total number of new or 1415 103 1518 190 4.2% modified digital records
Enhancement on digital ERYC KUHCC Total Average % of record consultation record per week Number of new consultation 83 6 89 11 0.5% records created Number of consultation records 387 22 409 51 20.8%
29 amended on digital record Total number of new or 470 28 498 62 2.5% modified digital records
An eight week period is far too short to either demonstrate any trends, or to provide any meaningful comparison with previous years. Detailed analyses will be offered at the October and February Board meetings.
3.11 The figures for the expenditure and income of the Humber SMR up until 16th June 2015 are as follows:
2015/2016 Expenditure at % EXPENDITURE Budget 16/06/2015 spent
PERMANENT EMPLOYEES £ 155,509.00 £ 23,662 15
PREMISES £ 12,000.00 £ 8,611 72
TRAVEL & SUBSISTENCE £ 820.00 £ 230 28
SUPPLIES & SERVICES £ 3,650.00 £ 273 7
CENTRALISED CHARGES £ 27,981.00 £ - 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURE £ 199,960.00 £ 32,776 16
Target Actual INCOME £ 199,959.50 £ 1,913 1
Humber Field Archaeology 3.12 Excavations are continuing at North Cave quarry.
3.13 A series of monitored topsoil strips on the footprints of key proposed infrastructure for a large residential development is now being monitored at a Romano-British site at Elloughton. Various enclosures, structures and field systems are being recorded. This will help to inform which parts of this large development site would benefit from any further monitoring of individual house plots, etc., and which could proceed without any further monitoring.
30 3.14 HFA have been working in concert with Oxford Archaeology North on the recording of the memorials within the Holy Trinity detached burial ground at Castle Street, Hull. All of the gravestones within the part of the burial ground which would be affected by the proposed road widening have now been recorded, lifted, and removed to safe storage, for the duration of the project. The intention is for the more complete memorials to be re-located within the burial ground at the end of the road scheme. Trial trenching is likely to begin in July 2015.
3.15 HFA also undertook a detailed record of the gravestones within the burial ground at Holy Trinity church itself, as a preliminary to the major new works which will accompany the removal of part of the boundary wall and the opening up of Trinity Square, plus the erection of a new extension on the south side of the church. Small-scale trial trenching and test-pitting is currently taking place to inform the design of the scheme. This is suggesting that many of the burials in the vicinity of the 19th-century perimeter wall had been removed when the overall height of the burial ground was reduced a century or more ago. On the south side of the church, one of the walls of the Alcock chantry chapel has been located.
3.16 Work is currently ongoing on a flood defence scheme near Leconfield. A burial has been uncovered during the course of this work.
3.17 An evaluation took place on the northern outskirts of Bridlington; however, the site had been heavily truncated, and little was found.
3.18 The titles in the HFA reports series from report no. 445 are:
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. 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.
31 460. 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. Archaeological investigations on land north of Flemingate, Beverley, East Riding of Yorkshire. 464. An archaeological evaluation on land at West Farm, Foston Lane, Beeford, East Riding of Yorkshire. 465. 466. 467. Archaeological trial excavations on proposed extensions to clay extraction site, Hemingbrough, North Yorkshire. 468. An archaeological evaluation on land at Welton Low Road, Elloughton, East Riding of Yorkshire. 469. An archaeological evaluation on North Street, Driffield, East Riding of Yorkshire. 470. Archaeological evaluation and recording on land off Burma Drive, Kingston upon Hull. 471. 472. An archaeological evaluation at New Grange Farm, Clayfield Lane, Shiptonthorpe, East Riding of Yorkshire. 473. Woodford Leisure Centre, Holderness Road, Kingston upon Hull. Assessment of Archaeological Potential. 474. Proposed Music and Event Arena, on land north and south of Roper Street, Kingston-upon-Hull. Assessment of Archaeological Potential. 474a. Archaeological recording on land north of Beckside House, Westgate, North Cave, East Riding of Yorkshire. 475. 476. An archaeological evaluation at Pinfold Street, Bridlington, East Riding of Yorkshire.
3.19 Eight watching brief reports have already been produced since 1st April 2015, bringing the HFA watching brief reports series to no. 1439.
Work by external contractors 3.20 Trial trenching has been carried out by CS Archaeology in Eastgate, North Newbald in April 2015. A series of medieval ditches, pits, post-holes and deposits were encountered and recorded.
3.21 MAP Archaeological Practice have been investigating a multi-period site at Burnby Lane, Pocklington, on and off since last summer. This is a residential development site which has responded partially to geophysical survey, but where subsequent intrusive archaeological investigation has demonstrated clearly how misleading geophysics on its own can be. Much of the site turns out to have been covered with a very extensive Iron Age square barrow cemetery, but only two out of perhaps as many as 60 such barrows
32 were actually identified by the geophysics – i.e. about a 3.33% success rate. The quality of survival of the Iron Age structural remains is such that, had this site been known before any application for planning permission been lodged, we would have put it forward for scheduling, and it is likely that this development would never have gone ahead. So far, we have had two Iron Age warrior burials, an impressive Romano-British burial, and at least one impressive Anglo-Saxon burial. To date, the total number of burials of all periods identified is over 80. We are trying to avoid any publicity for this site, as the developers have declined to pay for any out-of-hours site security, and the site has already once been targeted by illegal metal-detecting. Work will undoubtedly continue until at least this summer, if not later. It is also clear that there are other archaeological features and deposits to address, besides simply the burials. This is a site which would clearly need a substantial post-excavation programme of analysis and publication.
3.22 MAP Archaeological Practice have been carrying out evaluations at the eastern end of Kilham, in advance of a housing development. A number of features relating to the pattern of medieval crofts leading off the north side of Woldgate, and various pits and other cut features within those crofts, have been identified.
3.23 MAP Archaeological Practice have been carrying out an evaluation at land off Jenny Brough Lane, Hessle, in advance of a substantial housing development. The trial trenches targeted anomalies previously identified on a geophysical survey; many of these have proved to be geological, but a small number of Romano-British features have been identified.
3.24 Wessex Archaeology are carrying out pre-determination evaluations on a large site off Garrowby Road, Stamford Bridge. Residential development is proposed for a 6.5 hectare site adjoining the Roman road leading into the north end of the modern village. A geophysical survey was followed by trial trenching. It is likely that there will be a need for further work.
3.25 Wessex Archaeology have also been carrying out evaluations on the site of the Goole Fields II wind-farm. This has produced valuable evidence for post-medieval warping deposits sealing earlier peat deposits over parts of the application area.
3.26 Wessex Archaeology has also begun trial trenching at the Bridgehead development in Hessle parish. A number of ditches and pits have already been identified; these are yielding sherds of handmade pottery characteristic of the Iron Age or Romano-British periods.
3.27 AOC Archaeology have been carrying out trial excavations at two different sites within the southern third of the Old Town of Hull. One of these is at the Central Dry Dock, where parts of the nationally significant Charles I era South End Fort / (and its successor) the South End Battery have been exposed. The other is a pre-determination evaluation on part of the large Fruit Market development area to the north and south of Blanket Row; the northern portion includes the nationally significant late 18th-century
33 Theatre Royal site (in which the University of Hull drama school has a clearly defined interest).
3.28 Cotswold Archaeology are carrying out evaluations on the site of a large proposed solar farm at Bilton. Preliminary geophysical survey of this 59.9ha site identified a number of potential settlement foci of different periods within the proposal site. Selective trial trenching is currently taking place. At least one of the major settlement foci appears to be an early post-medieval settlement site. So far, about six Romano- British ditches have been located, but the majority of features appear to be of post- medieval date.
3.29 On Site Archaeology have been undertaking trial trenching on a site off Main Street, Barmby Moor. They have encountered a number of medieval and early post-medieval ditches and pits.
3.30 CFA Archaeology are currently carrying out a strip, map and sample operation on one of the proposed turbine sites at Fraisthorpe, where Romano-British features were earlier identified during trial trenching.
3.31 CFA Archaeology are also planning to undertake trial trenching at the Twin Rivers wind-farm, near Whitgift.
3.32 CFA Archaeology are also due to undertake trial trenching on a site to the south of Airmyn.
3.33 Pre-Construct Archaeology Lincoln are about to begin trial trenching at a development off Great Gutter Lane, Willerby.
3.34 A substantial number of geophysical surveys have taken place in recent months on Greenfield sites which are now being considered for either residential or commercial development. Several of these have produced interesting results, which will undoubtedly lead to trial trenching in the coming months.
3.35 Archaeological monitoring is due to take place in the coming months on the proposed improvements to the A1079 in Bridlington; this will affect remains both in the Hilderthorpe area, and in the Quay – and may potentially offer the opportunity to see whether anything survives of the putative Norman motte and bailey castle at Castleburn (near Palace Avenue). We have been dealing with Amey Construction, who have been acting as consultants for this scheme, but, presumably, at some stage soon, archaeological contractors will be appointed..
General 3.36 We have updated the fire signage throughout the building, and carried out our annual checks and replacements of fire extinguishers. We are currently waiting for NPS to carry out various recommendations for repairs and new installations, made in the recent Fire Plan.
34 3.37 We are currently waiting for various IT issues to be resolved. One of the larger ones is that the Council’s server which serves our building is now running at almost its maximum capacity; we are waiting for this server to be replaced (as part of a larger programme of server renewal), before we can upgrade our bespoke exeGesIS software to the latest version – the installation of the software would require more capacity than is left on this server.
3.38 A major new two-volume monograph is about to be published on the archaeology of Hayton. This will give details of nearly 20 years of field-walking, geophysical survey, and excavation work in and around the village of Hayton, and its adjacent Roman fort. The volume will be part of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society Research Reports series, and will be published by the Roman Antiquities Section of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. It will be the last of three major research monographs, detailing the research excavations carried out in the East Riding by the Universities of Durham, Hull and Southampton since the 1980s.
3.39 In one of our previous Newsletters we reported that a number of offshore underwater surveys were being considered on wrecks around the coast that had been associated with actions during the First World War – as part of the commemorations of that conflict. Historic England have now commissioned Fjordr Ltd to undertake a survey of the wreck of HMS Falmouth, which lies off our coast, to the south of Bridlington, and to the east of Hornsea. HMS Falmouth is a well-known wreck but its significance is perhaps not fully appreciated. In short, it presents the only known surviving remains of a Town-class light cruiser from the First World War; its loss to U-boats in August 1916 – together with its sister ship HMS Nottingham far out in the North Sea – marked a strategic turning-point in the actions of the RN Grand Fleet and the German High Seas Fleet; and HMS Falmouth also presents the only wreck in English Territorial Waters of a vessel that fought at Jutland. There’s an outline on the project pages of the company’s website at http://www.fjordr.com/projects.html.
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).
35 Agenda Item 8
Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board 29th June 2015
Review of the staffing structure, resourcing, and future work programme of the Joint Archaeology Service.
Archaeology Manager
1. Purpose of report and summary
1.1. To report to the Board on proposals to revise and update the staffing structure of the Joint Archaeology Service, as part of the review process previously reported to the Joint Board. As part of that process, we have also been looking at the future work programme, and the resourcing of the service.
2. Recommendation 2.1.A forward programme of key objectives is set out in paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16. It is recommended that the Board should consider these as offering a general direction of travel, and hopefully endorse them as a rolling programme of forward works.
2.2.Once the post of Archaeology Manager has become vacant in August 2015, it should be deleted from the structure, and be replaced with a new post of Principal Archaeologist. It is recommended that the latter be graded at Hull Grade 10. The savings made by that re-grading should be used to offset the costs of other proposed re-gradings.
2.3.The name of the section be changed from the Humber SMR to the Humber HER. This would be in line with current best practice within the profession, and also in line with the nomenclature used in all current Government Historic Environment guidance and policy statements, and also with the terminology used in the NPPF.
2.4.In line with this change, the Job Titles for the two East Riding of Yorkshire Council employees should be changed, and the two posts should be properly re-evaluated: their existing grades are inappropriately low, and should be revised upwards. The costs for this adjustment could be met by the savings to be made by the deletion of the Archaeology Manger’s post.
2.5.It is proposed that the existing Development Control Officer post should be replaced by that of a Development Management Archaeologist. A new Job Description has been prepared for this, to take into account the changes in the levels of decision- making and required skill-sets which have taken place during recent years. The recommendation is for the new post to carry a higher grading.
36 2.6.It is proposed that the existing post of Archaeological Administrative Officer would be broadened in scope, to take in a new role developing the social media outlets for the Section. The new post would be titled “Archaeological Administration and Communications Officer”. This change is likely to be cost-neutral, as the changes to the Job Description for this post are relatively small and unlikely to affect its grading.
37 3. Report
Background 3.1 At a previous Board meeting (25th October 2013; Minute no. 426) we were asked to undertake a fundamental and wide-ranging review of the joint archaeology service – though we were given no specific brief, or any indication of a specific desired outcome.
3.2 The existing curatorial section (the Humber SMR) has many very real strengths, and is fortunate enough to have some very capable and gifted officers. Previous independent audits have found that the quality of its metadata is very sound, and that, in general, the information which it holds about the archaeology of the area is good. The aim of the present review is to build upon those strengths, in order to gain the maximum benefit from our various resources, and to provide an even better-value service for our stakeholders and users. The report incorporates a bold and challenging vision for a forward work programme, which looks beyond the short term, and focuses on where we need to be in a decade’s time; it is deliberately geared towards the enhancement of our digital offer, as that is the direction in which both Central Government and our users would like to see us evolve.
3.3 The current staff structure of the service was largely inherited from the former Humberside Archaeological Unit, when it transferred to the new Unitaries on 1st April 1996. Since 1998 the section has comprised 4.5 staff, serving two Unitary Authorities. Two staff are employed by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, and the other 2.5 staff by Hull City Council – each has its own discrete working terms and conditions; the latter factor has led to a number of differences in pay grades, job titles, and leave allocations, between the staff of the two Authorities. The Partnership is governed by a Legal Agreement drawn up between the two Authorities. The present agreement is dated March 1996; a revised version was agreed in 2012, but neither Authority has yet signed it.
3.4 There has been no service-wide staff review since the late 1990s, though some of the individual job descriptions have been updated since then. We undertook a Best Value Service Review in 2000, and produced a report which set out a well-thought-out programme for developing the service.
3.5 Changes to pay grades introduced by Hull City Council in 2005, as part of its review of its own grades .introduced some disparities into the service. Those differences were accentuated in 2009-10, when Hull Planning undertook a review of its own Division, and standardised job titles across its various internal sections; unfortunately, this led to the arbitrary changing of the job titles of the two East Riding employees, without first consulting the East Riding of Yorkshire Council. Hence, we now have the situation where we cannot even agree what the official titles of these two posts should be: SMR Officer and SMR Assistant – or Senior SMR Officer, and SMR Officer. This makes the drafting of a report such as this more difficult, as there are clear risks of confusion.
3.6 Nationally, the old record management systems of holding records of heritage assets as catchall “Sites and Monuments Records” (which might lump together a number of
38 different archaeological investigations on the same site, with their various results, along with previous records of finds made at that site, and historical references to it) was replaced in the late 1990s by a more rational and usable system of discrete “Monument”, “Activity”, and “Source” records. By 2001 a debate had started amongst the profession about what revised terminology should be used (nationally) for SMR Offices, in order to reflect those changes. A number of possibilities were suggested, but within a few years English Heritage and the Government had settled on “Historic Environment Record” Offices (or HERs). Since the introduction of PPS 5 in March 2010, all Government literature refers to HERs, rather than SMRs – and it is this terminology which appears in the NPPF, and which is increasingly used on websites and in policy documents. Hence, our users are now used to looking for this term – not SMR. We are one of the very few Local Government Historic Environment services to still style ourselves a SMR – and this is a potential source of confusion for our users. If we are going to review job titles, then we really ought to look at doing away with the term SMR – but that would need the agreement of both Local Authorities, and particularly of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council [as the two job titles specifically mentioning the SMR are based within that Council].
3.7 In the middle years of the last decade there was a certain amount of financial help available to Local Authorities to help make the transition from an old-style SMR to the new-style HERs which were then envisaged [a discussion paper under the Blair government had suggested introducing a national system of bench-marking, and of allocating up to £12 million nationally to assist in meeting these standards – approximating to an average of perhaps £114K per Local Authority]. All such funding disappeared soon after the financial crisis of 2007-8, and, similarly, talk of introducing the proposed bench-marking, tied to future funding, fell off the agenda. However, key parts of the bench-marking programme have now been enshrined in the CIFA Standard and Guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services (see below).
The existing structure 3.8 The joint archaeology service is currently styled the Humber SMR. It currently comprises 1 x Hull Grade 11 Archaeology Manager; 1 x ERYC Sc. Pt. 28 SMR Officer / Senior SMR Officer; 1 x Hull Grade 5 Development Control Officer; 1 x ERYC Sc. Pt. 21 SMR Assistant / SMR Officer; 1 x approximately 0.5 Archaeological Administrative Officer.
3.9 Because of the emphasis given in quasi-statutory planning instruments, such as PPG 16 in 1990, to the need for Local Authorities to have permanent access arrangements to professional archaeological advice on aspects of planning, for a long time more weight was given to the development management side of first SMRs, and then HERs, than to the role of maintaining, enhancing and developing the public records of heritage assets. But that began to change with the introduction of BVPI 204, and was subsequently firmed up by the requirements in both PPS 5 and later the NPPF for Local Authorities to have formal long-standing arrangements to have access to HERs which are properly and professionally staffed and continue to be enhanced; as a result, the curation and enhancement of a HER is now seen by Government as being just as important a function as development management.
39 3.10 The key professional bodies in British Archaeology (ALGAO, the CBA, the former English Heritage, and the former IFA) jointly agreed a common professional Standard and Guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services in 2013 (updated December 2014). I have used that document in drawing up this paper.
3.11 One of the first questions which we need to ask is whether our current structure is the most suitable for our service in the coming years, which will undoubtedly be challenging because of the continuing budgetary pressures on Local Government; hence, I have tried to take a comprehensive look at our functions, our resources, and the likely challenges ahead. In doing that, one of the first aspects to be considered has to be how do we (as Local Authorities) wish to see the service develop during the next five years, and what should be our priorities.
3.12 In recent years financial pressures and the need to generate external income (to help spread the load of the two Local Authorities) have inevitably tended to influence – if not dictate – where we have largely devoted staff resources in planning our work programmes; but, whilst that has brought undoubted short-term financial benefits, it has often meant diverting resources away from the longer-term development of the service as a whole. In respect of the latter, there are now a number of areas in which we have fallen behind the better services in other Local Authorities (e.g. the bulk of our policies and procedures documentation is now very out-of-date, and clearly needs to be replaced; we are also one of the few Authorities not to have taken steps to go online; and our levels of public engagement / outreach / delivering public benefit are very low). As Local Authorities, we need to strike a better balance in planning forward work, between the need to simply generate income, and also the need to continue to develop the service.
Some suggested key objectives for the service during the next five years 3.13 Whoever is appointed to lead the team after my departure would undoubtedly have their own ideas about which objectives should take priority, and in which order they should be rolled out – and so this list is by no means exclusive; but, the following are clear examples of the direction in which the service should be heading, if it wishes to be considered within the top quartile of Local Authority archaeology services – and that should always be paramount in our vision. Similarly, I have not attempted to tie any of these to any fixed calendar, because none of us knows how long it will take to recruit and get a new lead officer into post, and in the meantime the section would be short- staffed.
3.14 In the last two years we have devoted most of our energies to making records suitable for uploading onto the Selective Heritage Inventory for Natural England [SHINE], in order to try to give more protection for sites within the agricultural sector. This has been a worthy objective, and there are clearly many more such sites which are currently threatened, and which are not on this inventory. To date, we have managed to upload about 21% of the sites which we need to have added to the inventory – and that achievement was greatly assisted by having a fixed-term officer in post for over a year; hence, we could in theory carry on doing this for years before achieving 100% coverage of the rural sites in the East Riding. [Under the terms of the scheme, SHINE could include examples of Historic Parks & Gardens; and so, in theory, there are also sites
40 within Hull which could now be added. However, the ones which we have been looking at so far have been exclusively within the East Riding, and this is likely to be the main beneficiary from this scheme.] Unfortunately, in concentrating exclusively on this, we are allowing Natural England to dictate our work programme, and that has benefitted one (albeit quite important and vocal) sector, to the detriment of some others. As all the SHINE sites in our area have so far fallen exclusively within the East Riding, this is also leading to an imbalance in our activities – and there are also many more archaeological sites in other parts of our area which would fall outside of those threatened by the agricultural sector. Hence, we need to find a better balance for our forward work programme. That does not mean that we should necessarily cease all work on the SHINE programme, but, if we do continue to work on this, then any such work should form a smaller part of a more balanced programme which offers benefits to both Local Authorities, and fits into a longer-term vision for the development of the HER.
3.15 Key objectives for the next five years ought (to my mind) include (in no particular order) the following:
Change our name from a SMR to a HER. All heritage legislation today refers to HERs, and to Heritage Assets. All new records created since 1998 have been in the new-style Monument, Activity and Source records, and this is the format in which our users wish to search our databases. The Joint Board has previously approved in principle such a name change (Minute no. 300; report no. 142; meeting of 23rd October 2009).
Completely revise and update our Policies and Procedures manuals; all of our existing documentation is out of date. An essential part of good Forward Planning / Disaster Recovery Planning should be to have such documentation in place. We have been very lucky that we have had the benefit of having extremely competent and committed staff in place for a lengthy period of time; but, we should recognise that, at some stage, those officers may be promoted, or may leave the Authority – and so we must have suitable procedures in place to train their successors. In addition, our Users should be able to request and receive copies of our Policies – and these need to be up to date; that is simply good practice, and part of Open Government. Were we to undergo a new HER Audit now, this is one of the areas where we would be scored as under- performing, and would be asked to address as a matter of urgency.
Look into and start to take steps towards going Online: the CIFA Standard and Guidance for archaeological advice by Historic Environment services states that “summary HER data should be available online, in a format suitable for access and reuse” (paragraph 1.33). There are various schemes available, including the Government’s Heritage Gateway – and there are grants of up to about £5K available to assist in this process. {Good examples of other schemes which go far beyond this can be seen in the online services maintained by Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils.] There may have been good reasons for not rushing into going online originally, and for letting other Local Authorities identify the various pitfalls to avoid; but, we are now one of the rapidly dwindling number of
41 Authorities not to have put at least part of their Record online – and, if we leave it too long, the remaining grants may disappear. Both our Users and our Stakeholders expect to find such data online. What I would suggest is that we consider using only point data, and placing only selected fields online – e.g. the NGR (and we can decide to limit this to a set number of digits, if we so wish), parish, Designation (if appropriate), Period, and a short Title (which may be just a single line, or two lines long). Placing only a digital abbreviated index to our records online, rather than more extensive information makes sense, in that it would (a) speed up the process, (b) leave us in more control over our information and how it is used by others, (c) continue to ensure that contractors and consultants would need to consult the HER Office directly to access fuller information, and (d) would not have a detrimental impact on our income generation; we could also limit what we place online to only Monument Records and old-style SMR records – meaning that those who wanted information about Activity Records would still have to pay for a commercial search. We could hold the online version as a separate layer on the GIS. On its own, this would not compromise the integrity of the HER, as we have supplied similar selective information to other projects or institutions under data exchange agreements (e.g. to the Yorkshire Archaeological Research Framework project). It would not remove the need for contractors and consultants to consult us for more detailed searches – in fact, we could make this a condition of WSIs for DBAs etc., and we could even issue Consultation Numbers to prove that the HER had been consulted – and so this would not endanger our future income generation. Rather, it might have the beneficial effect of encouraging people to use our web- pages, as a result of hyperlinks, and thus draw in new users, and encourage interest in the Historic Environment of our area. This also assists Disabled Users, and so is a positive Equalities step. This is an initiative for which we could bring in somebody to help get the ball rolling: that would be a sensible use of a £5K grant, and would help to spread the workload. A sensible political move would be to tie this into the 2017 City of Culture programme.
We still hold a large amount of supplementary information as paper-based records. Any Disaster Recovery Plan would need to identify a way of duplicating such information so that it could be safely held off-site – to protect against its potential loss or damage as a result of a fire, flood or other disaster. Because the HER records are in constant use, there is no question of ever sending the originals off site for commercial scanning; but, we could consider using the Modern Apprentice programme to facilitate either (a) scanning them in batches on-site (providing that did not disrupt the routine printing of letters, etc.), or (b) photocopying these so that copies could be sent for commercial scanning. The latter option would involve some double-handling, but might be less disruptive to other members of staff. Having all of these data in digital format would allow a security copy to be held off-site, and would thus greatly reduce the risks of permanent loss in a fire, or other disaster. True, we continue to receive paper records even today, and so the HER is constantly growing, and is not frozen in time; but, the greater part of our more recent records also come to us in digital formats – and so the greater risks are too our older solely paper-
42 based records. Getting a digital back-up would be a sensible and pragmatic way forward. Using Modern Apprentices would also offer young people a chance to get valuable work experience within an office, and they could also help to free up the time of our highly trained staff by taking on routine filing duties, etc.; in turn, that would mean that our permanent staff could devote more time to the development of the HER. The cost of a Modern Apprentice to the Local Authorities would be about £5,200 per year.
Download the Wreck data for our part of the coast from the National Archive, and add this as a layer to the GIS. We represent coastal Authorities, and Hull is acting as a lead authority for maritime inshore and offshore planning for our part of the East Coast. As more and more strategic offshore developments are being considered for our waters, we need to start holding records of what is in those waters. This would be a relatively simple first step.
Look into developing a project proposal for a Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment (RCZA) of the Humber Estuary – to complement that for the East Coast from Whitby to the Wash. An obvious partner as a contractor would be HFA – if they are interested. The Humber is one of the most dynamic estuaries on the East Coast, and has been a major route for shipping for the best part of the last 6,000 years; this would be of benefit to all four Unitary Authorities around the Estuary (the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Hull City Council, North Lincolnshire, and North-East Lincolnshire). Given the rates of erosion, projected sea-level change, and planned managed retreat, it would make eminent sense to have a RCZA for this estuary.
Following on from the RCZA from Whitby to the Wash, consider revising and updating our bid for funding the setting up of a Maritime HER module for our part of the East Coast and the Humber Estuary; as with the RCZA, this would involve cross-Authority working. Historic England have previously indicated that they would be sympathetic towards such an initiative. Rather than trying to do this alone, identify a suitable external archaeological contracting organisation to do the groundwork (as we did with the RCZA and the HLC projects). We have an international port, one of the busiest and most important estuaries for shipping on the East Coast (after the Thames), and one of the fastest eroding coastlines in the country: shipping and maritime activities (such as fishing) have played a major part in the life of this whole area for many centuries, if not millennia – and particularly for the areas which now constitute our two Local Authorities. Not having a Maritime Record is an obvious oversight, which we should now begin to address. This would also potentially be beneficial for the Marine Management Organisation (or MMO), as an information source.
Look into working up proposals for seeking funding for projects to undertake surveys and reviews of the Palaeolithic sites within our area, and also the Mesolithic sites within our area. These would tie into national initiatives being co-ordinated by Historic England; similar studies have already been launched in other areas, such as West Yorkshire, and South Yorkshire. This would help to
43 update our records and greatly improve our current state of knowledge. This is a highly specialised area of expertise, so it would make sense to bring in an accredited specialist to undertake this work – but, it would enhance our profile, and bring us some kudos, plus possibly a project management fee.
Following on from the successful pilot stage of the (former) English Heritage- funded Intensive Urban Archaeology Project for Kingston upon Hull, work with a commercial partner (such as HFA, if they are interested) to develop a revised project design for the Assessment Stage. A previous stumbling block was the cost of purchasing GIS and the appropriate map bases; whereas we now have all of these in place, and HFA staff have gained experience of working with exeGesIS software, as part of the HLC project. Running the next stage of the project would bring major benefits in terms of enhancement of the data held for the central area in Hull, and would also make such data far more useful as a major research tool for the City’s heritage – and probably result in far more HER users. This could be tied into the 2017 City of Culture programme of projects, and would offer Historic England a useful way of supporting and contributing to that programme.
Work with a commercial partner, such as HFA (if they are interested), to revive the project bid for an Extensive Urban Archaeological Survey to cover the historic towns of the East Riding. It is clear that, as many of our historic towns have been identified as also being major sustainable settlements within the new draft Local Plan, they will see more and more development pressures both within and immediately around their historic cores; hence, the need to properly understand such settlements and to develop strategies for their effective management is becoming ever more urgent. Historic England have indicated that they would be open to an approach to develop such a programme – particularly building on the previous development of the HLC; this would be seen as a companion project which would help to complement the HLC. Again, some of the elements which were intended to be purchased in the previous bid are now already in use within the HER.
Develop Facebook and Twitter accounts for the HER. More and more use is being made of social media by substantial sections of the public, and this would enable us to communicate more effectively not only with some of our existing users, but also with additional potential users. Simply ignoring this form of potential communication would be both short-sighted and counter-productive, as it has the potential of reaching a far wider audience and of increasing awareness of what is happening in the area, and what we are doing. It also has the potential to reach a different demographic from those who rely on our more traditional outlets – and thus would be more inclusive. Other archaeology services have broadened the roles of their Administrative staff, by creating a new role of Administration and Communications Officer; this would seem to be a sensible approach to follow, in order to co-ordinate the development of social media within our service.
44 Look into the possibilities of making our digital Newsletter fully interactive, so that individual articles etc. can be found by Search Engines – and thus would be more accessible. The present stumbling block would seem to be the need to purchase certain types of software; hence, we need a Business Case for our IT Services to purchase this and install it. We could also install links to the Newsletters via Facebook and Twitter accounts. All these actions would potentially result in greater use of our Newsletters, expanding our number of users, and increasing consciousness of the heritage of the area.
Start doing Open Days or Road Shows again: these were very successful in the later 1990s, but were discontinued as an austerity measure by Hull Museums. Nevertheless, they did reach a very wide audience, many of whom would otherwise have little contact with us. Doing these on ordinary working days would avoid the problem of overtime payments, and would make life easier for the staff. Opting for Road Shows which could be held in various public venues, rather than just expecting visitors to come to our offices, would make these events more accessible to a broader section of the community; it might also be easier to organise and manage these events, as our own building is quite large and would require a larger number of staff to look after visitors. These are an obvious type of event to run in Hull during the City of Culture programme, and could be styled around the theme of “What is beneath your feet?” – on a similar basis to previous Historic England initiatives in other towns. Central Government is putting increasing emphasis on the need for archaeology services to demonstrate public benefit, through more and more public engagement; events such as this would be a natural response to such calls on our time.
Develop an App to facilitate walking around the Old Town of Hull, in time for 2017: this would allow people with smart phones or tablets to explore the Old Town, and draw their attention to major Monuments (both still standing, and now demolished), historic streets, parts of the Town Walls and Defences, or where key excavations have taken place - as they walk through the Old Town [The Museum of London has developed a very successful example of such a digital exploring guide, and this is being copied in several other historic towns, e.g. Chester; similar approaches are being developed by the Historic Towns Atlas Committee.] Once again, this chimes in with the idea of “What is beneath your feet?”, and is a way of making history come alive, and making it more interesting and fun to explore an historic town. We currently have the lines of the medieval Town Walls marked out in coloured brick in our pedestrian areas, but no signage to explain any of this to the public: an App could tell you instantly what you are walking across. As this is in line with Historic England policies within the NHPP, grants are available to facilitate the development of such an App. If this proved popular in Hull, we could think about taking a similar approach to some of the East Riding historic towns in future years. This is another good example of how to increase our levels of delivering public benefit, as a service.
Longer-term objectives
45 3.16. In addition to the initiatives outlined above, there are a number of other steps which we should consider in any longer-term planning, to enhance the quality, content and breadth of the HER; however, these may take considerably longer to complete, because of (a) our limited staff resources, and (b) the amount of work involved in some of these tasks. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile setting these out here, as whoever takes over may consider some of these more pressing than others – and may wish to make some of these of greater priority. These include: The completion of uploading relevant data onto the SHINE database
Ensuring that all relevant Monument Records have been created for the National Mapping Project for the Yorkshire Wolds
Ensuring that all relevant Monument Records have been created for the National Mapping Project for the Vale of York
Ensuring that all relevant Monument Records have been created for the National Mapping Project for the Chalk Lowlands and the Hull Valley
Look into whether it would be feasible to make the Humber Wetlands Project data compatible with our GIS software [it was created using a different bespoke software]. If this could be converted, could it be loaded onto our GIS – perhaps as a discrete layer?; if not, is there any way of rescuing the data from this project, and making them accessible to our users? Could we ask exeGesIS to look into this, and advise accordingly?
Start to process some of our large infrastructure projects onto the HER (e.g. gas pipelines, gas reception facilities, electricity cable routes, water pipelines, and Waste Water Treatment Works). National Grid plc have offered to supply us with the plots of more recent gas pipelines, and all of their archaeological interventions, in digital form; we could see whether these could be loaded onto the GIS as a separate layer, and then see how much work would be involved in creating the individual Monument and Activity Records. Because many of these pipelines tend to go through areas of open countryside, where little previous archaeological work has taken place, these will result in the creation of large numbers of new records. We now have a growing number of such pipelines and cable routes – and, because of the large amount of new fieldwork that such projects have generated, there is a substantial body of work waiting to go on.
We have a substantial body of past evaluations and excavations waiting to be processed and added to the HER as new-style Monument, Activity and Source Records. Devise a work programme to tackle this in a systematic manner, and to get all of this valuable information onto our system, and thus make it accessible to our users. This will take a considerable amount of person hours, and it will require skilled and highly experienced staff with the appropriate amounts of archaeological knowledge – but, the potential benefit would be enormous.
46 Continue replacing central point data with digitised polygons; in the longer run, this would make much better use of the GIS system, would be more informative, and much more useful for development management purposes. But, because of the sheer number of records which we have, this would take a considerable number of person hours. This might be a task which would be suitable for assistance by Modern Apprentices, if we were lucky enough to get suitable candidates with the right skill- sets, and if the work were properly supervised.
Continue with the process of splitting the data currently held as old-style SMR Records into discrete Monument, Activity and Source Records. This would make these data far more useful, informative and searchable; it would also get our records up to the current nationally accepted standards. It will take a considerable number of person hours, and it is a task which requires considerable experience and specialist knowledge to complete. It might be sensible to do this on a parish by parish basis, starting with those with fewer existing records; that way, it would be easier to plot the progress of updating the records – leaving those with the most records until last.
Ensure that all data currently held for our area by the Portable Antiquities Recording Scheme have been added to the HER.
Ensure that all of the 20th-century Defence of Britain project data have been added to the HER.
Ensure that all of the data relating to historic buildings in our area covered in the second edition of the Pevsner Buildings of England series volume for York and the East Riding have been added to the HER; this should include the large urban areas.
3.17. The two preceding numbered “paragraphs” have set out a long list of objectives, which at first sight might be daunting, and which would undoubtedly take many years and a considerable input of staff time and resources to complete; but, some of these are more straightforward than others, and could be accomplished relatively quickly. In the case of other objectives, we have suggested that effective Partnership-working with others – including external agencies or organisations – would seem to be a more pragmatic way forward, than trying to do everything in-house; in particular, we need to avoid getting bogged down in trying to micro-manage everything, and we need to make better use of outside help. We have suggested using the Modern Apprentice programme, to help spread the load of many routine office tasks, in order to free up our specialist staff and make better use of their talents. The previous employment of a fixed-term assistant demonstrated what an impact an extra pair of hands could have; whilst that particular option is no longer open to us, we do need to explore how we can take advantage of those employment schemes which are still permissible. We currently have space and available computer ports to accommodate additional work-places; hence, we should consider such options. There are also Historic England initiatives (such as the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Surveys) which we could explore for additional grant funding, and the use the services of suitable external specialists.
47 3.18. Whilst the coming years may be challenging, we need a bold and progressive vision of how we wish to develop the service, and the direction of travel in which we wish to be heading. The quality of the existing metadata on our system is consistently strong, but we need to ensure that we continue to develop that set of records, and to bring it up to the highest currently agreed national standards. The fact that we do have such a large dataset means that this is a larger task than would be faced by many smaller Local Authority services; but, we cannot just use that as an excuse for not facing up to that challenge. We must continue to develop and enhance the Record, and get it up to the optimum quality expected of all good curatorial archaeology services: our users and stakeholders deserve nothing less. “Doing Nothing” in this case is not an option, as that way the service would simply stagnate, and would increasingly fall behind the standards of its comparators. Rather, whilst this might take many years to achieve all of the goals set out above, we ought to embark on a staged programme of continual improvement.
Resourcing 3.19. It is likely that all Local Government will face increasing budgetary pressures during the next five years – and that some of those pressures will also impact on this joint archaeology service. Therefore, it becomes imperative for us to explore ways in which we can maximise our potential for income generation, in order to help relieve the load on our parent departments in both Local Authorities.
3.20. In anticipation of this, the Joint Board approved a substantial set of revisions to our Charging Policy in October 2014 (Board Minute no. 453) – the first major revision for six years. As we pointed out in the paper which was presented to the Board then, we anticipate that the levels of income previously generated by the provision of advice on agri-environmental; schemes are likely to drop, in response to national changes being rolled out by Natural England and DERFA; we shall need to monitor these trends in the coming months, and, if necessary, we may need to revisit our charging policies yet again, to correct any potential shortfall.
3.21. We shall also need to consider getting the maximum benefit from the use of volunteers and/or placements, to assist the permanent staff. In the same way that we are now thinking of using the Modern Apprentice programme to assist our permanent staff, we ought to explore all possible avenues of help, in order to be able to deliver the quality of service to which we ought to aspire. The projected programme over the next few years will certainly be challenging; hence, we need to think about how to make the best of the resources available – including volunteers.
3.22. If Hull City Council proceed, as planned, with the privatisation or out-sourcing of HFA, then we would need to see whether their new owners would wish to carry on renting space at our premises at Northumberland Avenue. As they currently pay £19,261 per year towards our premises costs, this is a key consideration. Were they to move, then we would need to consider moving the curatorial service to new premises; however, as we currently occupy premises rent-free, such a move might also perversely entail a rise in our own premises costs, rather than being cost-neutral.
48 3.23. We currently lease one room in the building to a freelance ceramic expert – Peter Didsbury; he pays £1,288 per year towards out premises costs. Should he retire, for any reason, then this again would impact upon our finances – though to a far more manageable extent than any potential change to HFA’s status as a tenant. All being well, he is likely to continue working here for the next two or three years, but, we do need to be aware that eventually he may choose to leave, and we need to start planning for how we meet that shortfall.
The proposed review of our structure 3.24. For much of the last 25 years the facts that not only have the archaeological implications of development been closely tied to the Planning process, but that our Planning Divisions have also been amongst our most important stakeholders, have meant that Development Management has played a major (if not the dominant) factor in our work programmes – sometimes taking up a substantial part of the work programmes of three officers (out of the four and a half staff). This in turn has meant that the amount of time and resources which could be put into the maintenance, enhancement and development of the actual HER has been much smaller than its counterpart, and far less than it actually should have had – if we want it to reach the standards achieved by many other Authorities; although ostensibly the job titles might suggest that we had two officers exclusively dedicated to the HER as a public record, in reality other calls on people’s time have often meant that only one permanent officer is consistently working on HER enhancement and development, supported occasionally by others, as resources allow. That now needs to be changed, as all Local Authorities have a duty to have access to a HER which is properly maintained and enhanced. What we should be trying to achieve in any Forward Plan is something more approaching parity between the resources allocated to Development Management, and those allocated to HER development.
3.25. In any small team there is a need for flexibility, so that we can ensure that we could provide cover whenever a member of the team is absent; hence, we should not try to make the range of duties rigidly proscriptive, in terms of (for example) only carrying out Development Management work, or only ever engaging in duties relating to the maintenance, enhancement or development of the HER. But, with a team of four dedicated specialist staff, we should try to achieve a situation where most of the time up to two of the officers would be largely engaged with Development Management work, and up to two with HER duties. There will inevitably be other categories of work which would fall outside of these two broad categories (e.g. agri-environment schemes), but which would still need attention; nevertheless, if we start from the position that we would like to achieve some sort of parity in our approaches towards Development Management, and HER development, then we are probably heading in the right direction.
3.26. In the current economic climate, there is no question of expanding the size of the team by creating new posts. Hence, what is proposed is to revisit some of the existing JDs,, amend some of the roles, and submit the revised JDs for job evaluation – the overall size of the team would remain unchanged. If we can adjust the scope of duties within the individual posts, then we could probably manage to achieve those aims with our
49 existing staffing levels – but, it would have to mean re-visiting some of the JDs, in order to better define the roles of individual posts.
The proposed post of Principal Archaeologist 3.27.The title of the Archaeology Manager post was established under Humberside County Council in April 1994, as part of a restructuring of the then Property & Estates Directorate; the post was previously known as Principal Archaeologist, and had existed since 1975. On the abolition of Humberside County Council on 31.3.96, the post transferred to Hull City Council, where it is still based.
3.28.Much has changed since 1994-6. At that stage, the post-holder was responsible for The archaeology of the whole of Humberside County (i.e. the area now occupied by four successor Unitary Authorities); since April 1996 both South Bank Unitaries have set up their own archaeological services, and the area served by the Partnership now consists solely of the two North Bank Authorities (Kingston upon Hull City Council, and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council) – i.e. the area has been halved. Several of the original delegated powers and responsibilities which once went with this post were either altered, or swept away by the Legal Agreement for the provision of a joint archaeology service; many of these changes were instigated by North Lincolnshire Council when they were part of the Partnership, as they wished to see the powers of this post made subservient to a Management Committee which they felt they could dominate more easily. Although they have now left the Partnership, their legacy is a Partnership which is effectively controlled by an officer-led Committee, rather than being managed by a single manager – and, in the event of any difference of opinion, the Legal Agreement does not even grant the manager the right of any vote [i.e. he or she is disenfranchised]. Fortunately, we have adopted consensus politics for a number of years, and so this has not yet proven to be an issue; but, constitutionally, the manager’s role is now very weak. In 1994 and 1995 the post-holder would have been directly responsible for a budget of over £0.75 million. City-wide changes made during the last three years have meant that all budgetary control has been shifted upwards to AHOS level, and the post-holder now simply assists the AHOS. Moreover, the size of the Humber SMR budget is now around £200K per year, including externally-generated income – i.e. it is under one-third of what used to be handled, and even the direct control of that has been shifted to the AHOS; the role of the manager is now simply to assist in the financial management – and, apart from the annual audit returns, there is comparatively little effective role that the manager can play in this process, because he or she is largely left out of the loop in the day-to-day financial management, as a result of the recent changes to the City’s way of working (see below). Previously the post-holder would have exercised direct budgetary approval and control over all expenditure. Changes made to the Oracle permissions during the last three years mean that almost all requests for orders and expenditure now bypass this post altogether – being made either at a higher level (AHOS), or at a subordinate level (e.g. the Senior SMR Officer level). In 1994-5 the post-holder would have been responsible for over 50 permanent, temporary or casual staff. Currently, this is now less than 20 such officers – and if the
50 proposals to outsource HFA go ahead, this officer would be responsible for just 3.5 staff (excluding the post-holder). In 1994-5 the post-holder would have been directly responsible for the management of both curatorial and field staff as a single integrated unit. Progressive changes introduced from 1997 onwards resulted in first the splitting of the former Archaeology Unit into two separate sections – The Humber SMR, and Humber Field Archaeology – only one of which would be funded by the Partner Authorities, and the other would have to be self-financing as a business unit. Successive changes made from 2006 onwards have increasingly meant that HFA reports directly to the Directorate, and is not managed by the post-holder; this has been reinforced by changes at national level which see clear differentiation between curatorial and contracting services. The last restructuring of HFA went ahead without any involvement of the Archaeology Manager in the process – and this reflects the de facto status of this contracting arm. Moreover, in the last revision of the Partnership Legal Agreement, we were asked to remove all mention of HFA from the document – reflecting also its de iure status. The relationship between the Manager post and the contracting arm is now ill-defined, and seems more akin to that of a landlord with responsibilities for their premises and facilities, than as its practical day-to-day manager. All financial decisions for sums over £2K in value, and more and more policy decisions, spending decisions, and even the development of charging policies are now made by Elected Members on the Joint Archaeology Board – rather than by the Archaeology Manager (as would have been the case 20 years ago). This is very much in line with practice elsewhere in the Council. Changes introduced by the Oracle system during the last three years have meant that many day-to-day decisions to do with teams, and the setting of their work programmes are being implemented at the Line Manager level, rather than at the Archaeology Manager level; hence, PPDs, leave approvals, sickness interviews, and even home-working agreement schemes are being carried out at that lower level. 20 years ago major decisions about the archaeological implications of strategic planning developments and large DC projects would invariably be made by this post- holder; now, increasingly, these are seen as team responses – even by Historic England. Hence, the levels of expertise and responsibility expected of this post are gradually being diluted from what was formerly expected. These changes have been exacerbated by the introduction of charging regimes for Councils to discharge planning conditions. An unforeseen side-effect of this is the amount of time now taken up with approving Written Schemes of Investigation and discharging planning conditions; thanks to the e-mail system, more and more of the time of this post is taken up with dealing with this aspect of planning, rather than the more important Forward Planning issues which this post would be better suited to handling. [This is particularly a problem with casework relating to the East Riding of Yorkshire, but it does apply to both Authorities.] Now, it may well be that for financial reasons, both Planning Divisions see maximising income generation as a major priority; but, if the focus of this post is going to shift from providing input into the major long-term strategic developments within the two Authorities, and move towards the more
51 speedy processing of smaller, less important day-to-day planning applications, then it would become harder to justify a Grade 11 salary for this post in the future.] The only major responsibility, at a managerial level, which has been left to this post is the responsibility for the Northumberland Avenue premises. In this respect, this post differs from many other manager posts within the Council – e.g. many managers who are based in shared buildings, such as Kingston House, or The Guildhall, would have no direct responsibility for the safety and security of a whole building. Yet, that is more the result of an historical accident – in that these premises transferred initially to the joint service from the former County Council – and, as time goes by, some of those peculiarities are being addressed by the City Council; for example, the City now owns our building outright, rather than holding it in joint ownership, and more and more of the responsibilities which go with the building are now being subsumed by the Council (e.g. Civic 1 now handles the security, and recently NPS Humber has taken over the development and management of Fire Plans). If the City is now seriously considering the privatisation or outsourcing of HFA, then there is no guarantee that the latter (under new ownership) would stay in this building – at which point, the likelihood of the Humber HER remaining at Northumberland Avenue, on its own, would diminish rapidly.
3.29.The cumulative impacts of these various changes are that the responsibilities of this post have changed considerably during the last 20 years, and have been substantially lessened. Whereas this post was graded at Hull Grade 11 in 2007 and 2011, it would be hard to see a justification for maintaining that high level of staff grading in future years – simply because so many of the former duties have changed, and at the same time the level of responsibility has been substantially reduced.
3.30.Because of changes which are happening all over the Council, the role of the Archaeology Manager, in its historic incarnation, is really becoming harder to justify. There is also the question of how does this post – traditionally dealing largely with below-ground archaeological remains – now relate to the work of the Conservation Sections (traditionally dealing with Built Heritage) within both Authorities. Since the introduction of PPS 5 in 2010, Government rhetoric has been about the need for an holistic approach to the Historic Environment. There have always been clear overlaps between the two, but increasingly Central Government wishes to see us have a joined-up approach to this large topic. At the moment, the City has a Grade 11 Archaeology Manager, but a Grade 10 Principal Conservation Officer; the comparable senior position within the East Riding of Yorkshire Council is that of the Senior Conservation Officer – again, graded at a lower level than a Hull City Council managerial post. If we are to carry out a major restructuring of the archaeology service, should we be looking at getting something closer to parity in the way that we deal with both the Built Environment, and with below-ground archaeology? In terms of comparability with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s grades, a Hull Grade 10 salary would fit in well with that of an ERYC Team Leader, which is often set at Scale Point 42.
52 3.31.There is a clear need for 4.5 staff within the Humber HER – if only to cope with the sheer volume of casework; so, there is no question of simply abolishing the Manager’s post, without replacing it with another officer post, to bring the team back up to strength. The more valid question is what do we want that person to do. There is also a clear need for a Team Leader – in that somebody has to take overall responsibility for the actions of the team, and somebody would have to write the various reports for both the Management Committee, and for the Joint Archaeology Board. Even, were one to adopt the position that the Management Committee and the Board would develop all further strategy, one would still need somebody to implement those decisions, and to organise the various work programmes of the team. The only question then becomes, at what level should one grade that post?
3.32.Given the changes which have taken place, which have progressively weakened this post and watered down its responsibilities, my own feeling is that a Grade 11 post would now be hard to justify for any future restructuring of the Humber SMR/HER. The post has stayed at Grade 11, largely because it was originally inherited by Hull City Council at about that sort of level (but that historic grading reflected a time when the post had much greater responsibilities). We are looking at the whole structure of the team now, largely because, with my intended departure this summer, this is an appropriate time to think about the form of structure which we shall need for the next five or more years.
3.33.At the moment, there is a huge gulf between the Manager’s post at Grade 11 (Sc. Pt. 45-48), and the rest of the team. The Senior SMR Officer post is graded at Scale Point 28 – some 19 points lower down the scale. Then, we have a Development Control Officer and an Archaeological Administrative Officer at Scale Point 22, and a SMR Officer at Scale Point 21. Whilst some of these inconsistencies are a result of the two Authorities having different systems for grading posts, we can at least accept that the present structure is rather illogical; had we started from scratch, I don’t think that any of us would have come up with this as an ideal structure – and it is hard to defend those illogicalities. [It made sense when this post was managing a much larger unit, with more staff, greater budgets, and a tier of middle management at Hull Grade 8, rather than the next level down being Scale Point 28. The proposal to outsource HFA means that the proposed grading of this top post surely now needs to be revisited.]
3.34.My planned departure offers the opportunity to start again with proposals for a structure. I think that it would make more sense to opt for the role of an archaeological curatorial team leader at either Hull Grade 9 (Scale Points 35-38), or Hull Grade 10 (40-43). I would suggest that an appropriate comparison might be with the Principal Conservation Officer post in Hull City Council (Hull Grade 10) – which would then give parity between the Built Heritage and below-ground archaeology; this would also be broadly comparable with the equivalent ERYC grading for a Team Leader (Scale Point 42). Hence, it would fit in more comfortably with the changes already made within the City’s Planning Division. Accordingly, I
53 have prepared a JD for a Principal Archaeologist post, to replace the Archaeology Manager post in any subsequent restructuring exercise.
3.35.The original title for this post in Humberside County Council was Principal Archaeologist, before it was upgraded to take greater responsibility for a field unit; comparison with current practice in other Local Authorities suggests that a return to that title would be a sensible move. If we look at the 24 Local Authority archaeology services in Northern England and the East Midlands, the most common choice for the job title of the leading archaeologist / team leader is that of Principal Archaeologist: four major Archaeology Services (16.6% of the sample) use this term – Durham County Council, North Yorkshire County Council, South Yorkshire Archaeology Service (a joint service for four District Councils), and West Yorkshire Archaeological Services (a joint service for seven District Councils). Three other services (12.5%) are headed simply by “Archaeologists”, whilst another three urban Authorities (12.5%) are led by “City Archaeologists”. One is still termed a County Archaeologist (4.1%), whilst another is titled “Specialist Advisor (Archaeology)” – 4.1%. Several other Authorities have seen their services downgraded to the point that the most senior officer left is a Senior HER Officer, or even a HER Officer. We are now currently the only Authority with an Archaeology Manager – although the Greater Manchester service reports to a Heritage Management Director [however, this would appear to be a higher-level post that embraces Built Heritage, Heritage Tourism etc., as well as Archaeology and HER management].
3.36.The perceived savings which could be made by these changes at the top could then be used to address some of the more obvious inequalities lower down the scale. It did not make sense to have a gap of four Hull Grades between the top post, and the next post lower down the scale. It would make more sense to have a difference of two such Grades between each level – i.e. if the top post were to become Grade 10, then make the post below that Grade 8, and the ones below that Grade 6; or, if the top post were to become Grade 9, then the post immediately below that would be Grade 7, and the ones below that Grade 5. That kind of progression would be more logical, and thus easier to justify. Any savings made by reducing a Grade 11 post to a Grade 10 or Grade 9 post, could then be redistributed to address current inequalities – without these having to result in either Authority finding additional funding.
3.37.The rates of pay within Hull City Council from 1st January 2015 show the penultimate scale point of Grade 11 as £41,140 (without oncosts). The penultimate scale points for Hull Grades 10 and 9 are respectively £36,571 and £31,846. Hence, if the post were re-graded to Grade 10, there would be somewhere in the order of £4,569 to use to redress some of the existing inequalities of the lower grades within the service; were the post to be re-graded to a Grade 9 post, then there would be £9,294 available to address not only those inequalities, but also the existing disparity between the Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council grades (i.e. there would be no excuse for not tackling the issue of harmonisation of pay-scales, simply on the grounds that the funding was not available).
54
3.38.The detailed JD for this post sets out the range of duties expected of the post-holder. With any team leader, there will be a strong element of administrative duties, leadership, liaison and co-ordination roles, and a need to assist with financial management; but in addition to those, there is the question of what contribution this officer can bring to the work of the team.
An obvious area is the contribution towards Forward Planning issues – some of which would fall within the sphere of more general Planning issues (e.g. input into the development of Local Plans, and Forward Planning documents; input into more strategic developments such as Flood Alleviation schemes, River and Estuary Catchment Plans, Coastal Plans etc.) – but others would fall outside of the Planning process (e.g. agri-environment strategies, marine archaeology, etc.). The development of Business Plans, Action Plans, and Team Plans for the HER Section. The identification of new projects and funding opportunities for the team, and also the identification of suitable external partners to deliver some of these initiatives. Ensuring that we deliver Public Benefit to our communities. There is a clear need for an input into Development Management, so that there is strong support available for the post currently styled Development Control Officer; the volume of casework will always be large, and far more than one person alone could comfortably manage. There are always likely to be larger, more complex, or more sensitive developments going on, which might be suitable for input from this post. There will also always be a need for assistance with monitoring pieces of fieldwork, and checking the quality of reports being received.
3.39.The role of this post ought to be akin to that of the Senior Partner in a Legal Practice, in that, whilst it does carry a substantial amount of administrative and fiscal duties, the post-holder should also be expected to continue to practise and engage in casework on a daily basis. This is too small a team to be able to support a purely desk-based, full-time administrator and bureaucrat.
The proposed Senior HER Officer
3.40.As outlined above, a change in our name from that of a SMR to a HER would also, in all logic, require a change in job titles. As neither Hull nor East Riding can agree on a common current job title, it would also make sense to start afresh with a completely new job title: at least that way, whichever form is finally chosen, we might be able to at least agree on a name acceptable to both Local Authorities.
3.41.This post has evolved historically over some 31 years into a catchall category which embraces aspects of both Development Management, and HER development; but, what we shall need, more than anything else in the coming years, is an officer who can develop the HER, and actively assist with its enhancement and the drafting of its formal policies. As can be seen from the key objectives set out in the earlier part of this paper, there are some very large tasks which we shall need to tackle, in order to
55 bring all of our records up to the currently accepted national standards, and to get all of the data from a number of backlog projects onto our database. That will be a challenging agenda, and it would be better if we could get two officers working largely full time on such matters [i.e. both the Senior HER Officer, and the HER Officer].
3.42.Although this post has traditionally contributed towards Development Management, probably a more useful use of this post-holder’s time and talents would be to shift the emphasis of their role more towards the improvement and development of the Record and its supporting policies and procedures – and away from Development Management.
3.43.This is a key post, and its grading has long been a source of contention, and has been based on a perception of what the expected duties were at the end of the 1990s. Not only have data management systems moved on enormously since then, but so too have the range of duties, skills, and expertise expected of curatorial officers working at this level in archaeology today. This is a very different world, and far more is expected today than was ever the case when this post was originally evaluated. For what is expected and needed in this position, a more appropriate grading would be Hull Grade 8 (Sc. Pts. 31-34) – or, if a fixed point is chosen, then Sc. Pt. 31.
3.44.The saving made by abolishing the post of Archaeology Manager, and creating a lower post of Principal Archaeologist could be used to cover the costs of this re- evaluation of the Senior HER Officer post.
The proposed HER Officer
3.45.In the same way as the Senior HER Officer is a new title, so this post too carries a new job title – for exactly the same reasons.
3.46.This is a key post, which has changed enormously since it was last evaluated. The levels of complexity of data management have increased greatly since 1998, and the levels of knowledge, experience, and relevant skills are all much greater than they were 17 years ago – and, in order to reach the levels required for the roll-out of the next objectives to attain the currently accepted national standards would be even higher. The present post-holder has already had to develop new procedures and routines which far out-strip those envisaged in 1998, and the expectations required for the next stage are even higher.
3.47.The present grading of Scale Point 21 is far too low for the calibre of work which is expected from this officer – on whom so much depends; it is also low, when considering the levels of specialist informed decision-making which are now required for this post – particularly when compared to the grades accorded to Planning Officers. This post should be re-graded to Hull Grade 6 (Sc. Pts. 23-26); if a fixed point must be selected, then it should be Sc. Pt. 25.
56 The proposed Development Management Archaeologist post
3.48.Development Management plays a major role in the functioning of the Planning Divisions within both Local Authorities. The post, as envisaged, would be a key position, which would be essential to the smooth operation and delivery of that role; it goes beyond the duties currently carried out by the Development Control Officer post. In many other Authorities, this Officer would be working in tandem with a Development Control (or Development Management) Manager, who would be taking far more of the key decisions. The absence of such a post-holder within this small team effectively means that the post-holder here faces a much greater level of responsibility and day-to-day decision-making, than would be the case in many other authorities. The procedures manual for this aspect of our work is now hopelessly out-of-date, and the current post-holder has had to develop this post way beyond its original grading – just to get the job done effectively. In fact, many of the sophisticated IT developments which have been made within this whole Section since the introduction of a GIS have been developed by this post-holder; and, if we are to develop the HER in the way in which we wish to, and to achieve its full potential, many more such routines will need to be developed by the post-holder.
3.49.Once again, this is a post which has developed substantially beyond what is reflected in the previous Job Description. This current grading for this post is too low, considering the levels of decision-making and the skill-sets now required to perform this role effectively. The current grading is that of a skilled technician, whereas the levels of decision-making and skill-sets are now more akin to those required of a Planning Officer. This should be re-graded to Hull Grade 6 (Sc. Pts. 23-26).
The proposed post of Archaeological Administration and Communications Officer post
3.50.We currently have the services of a dedicated Archaeological Administrative Officer, whom we share with Humber Field Archaeology. Thanks to a complicated formula, following the early retirement of a job-share officer in this post, what used to be a straightforward 50:50 split between the two sections, is now rather more convoluted This officer now works 17.76 hours per week for the SMR/HER, and 11.84 hours per week for HFA.
3.51.Outreach work will become an ever more important part of our role, as we are required to demonstrate the delivery of Public Benefit to the local communities. As part of that process, we should be developing a social media presence on sites such as Facebook and Twitter; we should also be developing our digital Newsletters, so that they are fully interactive. The other HER Officers are going to be heavily tied up with other duties; hence, we need somebody who can make the social media and communication side of our work a speciality. Several other Local Authorities have re-examined the role of their Administrative Officers, and have broadened this out into a new role of Administration and Communications Officer. I would respectfully suggest that we do likewise.
57 3.52. The existing financial management work carried out by this officer is critical to the successful performance of the team; this is a highly specialised role. The current proposal would see an expansion of this role, in order to also handle the social media sites for the team; in coming years, this is likely to also be critical in helping the public to interact with us – as this would effectively be the first point of contact for many potential new users.
3.53. The proposed changes would add an additional responsibility to the principal duties of the post-holder; but, this would probably not amount to sufficient change to affect the grading of the post. As the existing Job Description for this post was updated and re-evaluated earlier this calendar year, it is likely that these changes would be cost- neutral.
The likely costs of the proposed changes 3.54. As part of any staff review, we would need to consider the cost implications. The proposals which have been set out above have been carefully thought through, with the overall intention of being able to cover the likely costs of any proposed upgradings with the corresponding savings which would be achieved by the deletion of the Grade 11 post of Archaeology Manager, and its replacement with a Grade 10 Principal Archaeologist. In the first year, there would actually be an initial saving of £1,731.24 on the current salary bill; and, it is likely that the costs for the second year would also not exceed the current level of staff expenditure. Because of the nature of annual increments, this would eventually rise over a four-year period to £4,575.46 more than the current figure; but, this is a relatively modest increase, and part of the costs would be offset by the initial savings. Moreover, there would also be a number of years in which to find additional income to offset that increase.
3.55. The current staffing costs (oncosts for NI and Superannuation shown at 22% CURRENT STRUCTURE Grade SCP Cost (including oncosts) Archaeology Manager 11 48 £51,730.00 Senior SMR Officer 7 28 £29,718.00 DC Officer 5 22 £24,435.00 SMR Officer 5 21 £23,797.00 Archaeological Administrative 5 22 £11,465.04 Officer (60% of costs of PTE 0.8) Total £141,145.04
Year One proposals. All HCC staff are shown at the bottom of the scale; the two East Riding staff are shown at fixed scale points Proposed Structure (Year 1) Grade SCP Cost (including oncosts: NI/Super @ 22%) Principal Archaeologist 10 40 £42,579.00 Senior HER Officer 8 31 (ER) £33,036.00 Development Management 6 23 £25,182.00
58 Archaeologist HER Officer 6 25 (ER) £26,888.00 Archaeological Administration and 5 22 £11,728.80 Communications Officer (60% of costs of PTE 0.8) Total £139, 413.80
Year Four proposals. All HCC staff are shown at the top of the scale; the two East Riding staff are shown at fixed scale points
Proposed Structure (Year 4) Grade SCP Cost (including oncosts: NI/Super @ 22%) Principal Archaeologist 10 43 £46,007.00 Senior HER Officer 8 31 (ER) £33,090.06 Development Management 6 26 £27,796.00 Archaeologist HER Officer 6 25 (ER) £27,098.64 Archaeological Administration and 5 22 £11,728.80 Communications Officer (60% of costs of PTE 0.8) Total £145, 720.50
The “Do Nothing” Option
3.56. If the rolling programme of proposed forward works is rejected, then the Humber SMR would continue to function and would continue on its present course of development, until a new forward programme were agreed; but, it would face the risks of falling behind many other Authorities in the quality and range of services on offer. It would also fail to keep up with what is now expected by more and more of our users (e.g. being able to access online data), and also what constitutes best practice within the profession. This is not yet critical, but, if we keep putting off these sorts of decisions, then we would fall further and further behind the very best Authorities.
3.57. The proposed change of the name from the Humber SMR to the Humber HER would be in line with best practice, and also with the nomenclature now used in the National Planning Policy Framework, and in other Government documents. Should the Board decide not to implement that change, then we would continue as a SMR; however, this might prove confusing for users, and make us less easy for the public to find in reference searches (unless they are already familiar with our existing name).
59 3.58.The various changes proposed to the staffing structure are in response to the Board’s wish to see an over-arching review of the staffing and resourcing of the joint archaeology service. Should the Joint Archaeology Board not wish to implement any of these changes, then we would carry on with the existing structure. Not deleting the post of Archaeology Manager would simply mean that the Authority would then recruit a new manager on the existing Job Description and salary. Not proceeding with any of the other proposed changes would also mean that the status quo would continue – as would the present inequalities and out-dated Job Descriptions.
Recommendations
3.59.A forward programme of key objectives is set out in paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16. It is recommended that the Board should consider these as offering a general direction of travel, and hopefully endorse them as a rolling programme of forward works.
3.60.Once the post of Archaeology Manager has become vacant in August 2015, it should be deleted from the structure, and be replaced with a new post of Principal Archaeologist. It is recommended that the latter be graded at Hull Grade 10. The savings made by that re-grading should be used to offset the costs of other proposed re-gradings.
3.61.The name of the section be changed from the Humber SMR to the Humber HER. This would be in line with current best practice within the profession, and also in line with the nomenclature used in all current Government Historic Environment guidance and policy statements, and also with the terminology used in the NPPF.
3.62.In line with this change, the Job Titles for the two East Riding of Yorkshire Council employees should be changed, and the two posts should be properly re-evaluated: their existing grades are inappropriately low, and should be revised upwards. The costs for this adjustment could be met by the savings to be made by the deletion of the Archaeology Manger’s post.
3.63.It is proposed that the existing Development Control Officer post should be replaced by that of a Development Management Archaeologist. A new Job Description has been prepared for this, to take into account the changes in the levels of decision- making and required skill-sets which have taken place during recent years. The recommendation is for the new post to carry a higher grading.
3.64.It is proposed that the existing post of Archaeological Administrative Officer would be broadened in scope, to take in a new role developing the social media outlets for the Section. The new post would be titled “Archaeological Administration and Communications Officer”. This change is likely to be cost-neutral, as the changes to the Job Description for this post are relatively small and unlikely to affect its grading.
60
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).
61 Agenda Item 9
Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board 29th June 2015
Proposal to use part of our earmarked reserve for the employment of a Modern Apprentice.
Archaeology Manager
1. Purpose of report and summary
1.1. To report to the Board on proposals to spend part of our ear-marked reserve to cover the costs of employing a Modern Apprentice for a 12-month period to assist with making digital security copies of parts of our paper-based records, and assisting with general office duties. This would assist meet some of the key objectives set out in the programme of forward works outlined in Agenda Item 8. 1.2. The cost to the service of employing a Modern Apprentice for 12 months would be approximately £5,200 per year.
2. Recommendation
2.1. That the Board approves the expenditure of £5,200 from our ear-marked reserve to fund the cost of this contract. 2.2. That, should external scanning of any of the Records prove necessary, a further supplementary paper would be submitted to the Board, setting out the quantified details and costs, for the Board’s approval.
62 3. Report
3.1. As part of the process of Disaster Recovery Planning, we need to consider how best to address the risks of fire-, smoke- and water-damage to our paper-based records, in the event of a major incident.
3.2. A substantial portion of our records for individual Monuments, Activities, and, particularly, much of the supporting data for old-style SMR records is held on paper- based record, with accompanying maps and photographs. We hold, in addition, an extensive digital set of records; but, the paper-based records contain very much more supporting information, and are an invaluable part of the formal Record. We shall always need those paper-based records, as they are regularly consulted by our visitors and users, when they come to consult the Humber SMR over their enquiries or research interests – and, having access to paper-based records and large paper maps can be of major assistance to those who are more visually impaired.
3.3. The need to come up with a suitable solution to this risk was identified in our Best Value Service Review in 2000-2001. One possible option would have been for more and more of the records to be reformatted, and properly digitised onto the GIS – in which case, a digital back-up would always be held off-site; we have made some progress on that during the last 15 years, but resources have not permitted this to be completed in this way, and other demands on the service in the meantime have meant that this would clearly take many more years to fulfil. It would be more sensible to consider other options.
3.4. With the approval of the Board, we were able to get a substantial amount of older planning-related casework documentation commercially scanned; this has meant that we now have digital back-ups of these documents which can be easily accessed online, and linked to other records on our Consultations Module.
3.5. Because the old-style SMR records, and the more modern Monument and Event Records are in daily use – for both Development Management consultations, and for SMR/HER enquiries – we clearly do not have the option of boxing up substantial parts of the Record in batches, and sending it off-site for commercial scanning (as described in paragraph 3.4); but, we do now have both photocopiers which permit scanning, and also dedicated scanners on the premises. [The only problems with using our photocopiers for scanning are that most of the printing for a number of individual PCs is now routed through a photocopier, and hence there can be printing queues, and hold-ups, when the machine is being used for a different function.] Hence, we could either digitally scan these ourselves on the premises, or we could have them photocopied first and then send the photocopies off for commercial scanning.
3.6. Using a Modern Apprentice to do this sort of task would offer a young person a chance to get valuable work experience within an office, and give them a first step towards getting the necessary work experience to find a longer-term job. It would
63 also free up the time of our highly-trained staff, by allowing an apprentice to take on routine scanning, copying and filing duties. They could also be of major assistance with carrying out many routine office duties such as taking phone calls, and helping with a substantial amount of filing duties. We have seen previously, from the time when we had a fixed-term SMR Assistant post, that having somebody else in post can really help to free up other staff – which, in turn, can mean that for more SMR/HER enhancement becomes possible.
3.7. It would clearly depend upon the skills-sets of the individuals who apply for the post, but, if we are fortunate enough to get somebody with appropriate IT skills, they might be able to assist with tasks such as digitising the footprints of monuments etc. onto the GIS.
3.8. This is a large-scale project. The paper-based records which we currently hold occupy up to 56m of shelving within the Humber SMR Search Room. There is clearly enough work here to justify a 12-month contract; but, at the end of it, we would have a digital back-up to that essential paper-based Record.
3.9. The costs for a 12-month contract for a Modern Apprentice would work out at about £5,200 per year. We currently have about £24,000 in the ear-marked reserve; thus, we clearly have the funding for this.
The “Do Nothing” Option 3.10. What we are suggesting is a sensible way of addressing the potential risks to our paper-based records – should a major disaster ever occur. These records represent some 31 years of research and development; if one were to put a monetary value on the cost of replicating these, then it would be well over £1 million; hence, the expenditure of £5,200 would be a small price to pay to address that risk.
3.11. If we do not address the risk, then the status quo would persist. It may be many more years before our records are fully digitised – during which time, we would run the risk of potentially losing an enormous amount of information, should a major disaster occur. That would be a High Risk, and not very responsible strategy to adopt.
Recommendations
3.12. That the Board approves the expenditure of £5,200 from our ear-marked reserve to fund the cost of this contract.
3.13. That, should external scanning of any of the Records prove necessary, a further supplementary paper would be submitted to the Board, setting out the quantified details and costs, for the Board’s approval.
64 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).
65 For information only Agenda Item 10
Humber Archaeology Partnership Joint Board 29th June 2015
Briefing Note on the archaeological implications of the proposed A63 highway improvements along Castle Street, Hull.
Archaeology Manager
1. Purpose of report and summary
1.1. To report to the Board on the current state of progress of the archaeological schemes for the proposed A63 improvements along the course of Castle Street, Hull, and about the proposals for future archaeological work there.
2. FOR INFORMATION ONLY
66
3. Report
3.1. At the Board meeting of 6th February 2015, Members requested that an update should be provided on the archaeology of the proposed A63 Castle Street, Hull, improvements (Minute No. 459) at a future meeting.
3.2. Various proposals and schemes to upgrade the A63 through Castle Street have been on the agenda since at least 1990. As a result, there have been a succession of Desk-Based Assessments and Cultural Heritage Assessments prepared during the last 25 years – the most recent being a suite of documents prepared in 2013-14, and including not just desk-based assessments, but also surveys of the two standing Listed Buildings (the Earl de Grey public house, and Castle Chambers), and historic townscape characterisation studies (which include the Holy Trinity detached Burial Ground on Castle Street).
3.3. The present road scheme would involve the excavation of a long cut and cover underpass, which would pass underneath what is currently the roundabout at the end of Ferensway, and allow through traffic to pass much more quickly between the Daltry Street flyover and the section of Castle Street running through the Old Town; this would involve the excavation of a deep cutting some 7m – 8m deep, which would completely remove all surviving archaeology along that part of the route. In addition, the existing road would be substantially broadened in this area – particularly with the construction of new slip roads around the junction with Commercial Street and Ferensway.
3.4. One of the outcomes of these proposals is that approximately one-third of the present Holy Trinity Burial Ground on Castle Street (in its northern part) would have to be removed, and the bodies which are currently buried in that section of the cemetery would need to be exhumed, and relocated elsewhere. This burial ground is still owned by the Church of England, although the last documented burial therein was in 1861. The burial ground was in use from 1783 to 1861, and it is thought that as many as just over 43,000 bodies may have been interred there. If they were all evenly distributed across the cemetery, then there may be as many as 16,000 bodies within the section of the cemetery which would be affected by these improvements.
3.5. Historic England and various palaeo-pathologists are keen to see a substantial archaeological excavation take place on a late post-medieval burial ground in order to collect a large sample of bodies of documented individuals, so that the findings from an osteological study of these bodies could be compared and contrasted with the documentary records for those individuals. It is argued that this would help us to understand better the patterns of diet, nutrition, health and disease, genetic traits, pathology, and the mortality rates at different ages within these communities; it also offers a chance to test how accurate the osteological assessments of an individual’s age, sex, etc. actually are, when they can be compared against documentation for those individuals. We have statistically large samples from a number of excavated late post- medieval cemeteries in London; but, it is argued, that Hull would provide a comparable
67 sample from the North of England. Hence, it is possible to make a case for a research excavation in order to inform national research priorities which fit into Historic England’s National Heritage Programme.
3.6. On the other hand, there is no clear agreement yet on what would be the ideal size of sample of bodies which ought to be investigated archaeologically; and there are also practical considerations about where such a large sample of excavated bodies would need to be stored – as they take up a considerable amount of room – and, for how long should they realistically be kept. There is also the ethical consideration that as these are the burials of known individuals, many will have surviving relatives: and those relatives may well wish to see their ancestors reburied with dignity, rather than being kept in perpetuity in a research archive. This is a very sensitive area, where people’s religious beliefs and ethical concerns must be respected.
3.7. Lastly, there are potential public health issues in dealing with any burials where soft tissue may survive. Hence, from the outset, it was decided that any archaeological investigation must be accompanied by a clearance operation run by a professional cemetery clearance firm; and that any burials where soft tissue should survive would be dealt with by them, to a very strictly defined scheme of works.
3.8. In addition to this late 18th- and 19th-century cemetery, the proposed road improvements would have substantial below-ground archaeological implications. At the eastern end of the proposed cut and cover tunnel, the entrance to the tunnel would cut through the lines of both the medieval Town Ditch and the Civil War circuit of ditch, rampart and hornworks in front of the Myton Gate; these offer one of the few remaining potential opportunities to examine parts of these nationally significant archaeological remains – providing that they have not been completely removed by the construction of the adjoining early 19th-century Docks. Further west, near the roundabout at the southern end of Ferensway, there is the potential for encountering the remains of the late 12th- century and early 13th-century site of Wyke – Hull’s predecessor as a major port and a nationally significant trading emporium – and the associated lost vill of Myton [the settlement to which Mytongate originally led]; should these survive, then their location and investigation would be of paramount importance for our understanding of how Hull developed and emerged in its present position, and also for our understanding of the form and layout of early 13th-century ports on the East Coast of England, and of their trading connections.
Where we are currently 3.9. All of the desk-based studies have been completed, and the two standing buildings have been surveyed. A great deal of attention has focused on the aspects to do with the Holy Trinity Burial Ground. A survey has taken place of the perimeter walls; all of the memorial stones have been recorded, lifted, and removed to safe storage, and all of the undergrowth has been cleared away. Public advertisements and notices have gone out to alert any surviving relatives of the intention to remove about one-third of the burial ground. A Faculty has been issued by the Diocese of York to permit both preliminary
68 ground investigations, and an evaluation by trial trenching to take place; that Faculty was issued in October, and is valid for a period of one year.
3.10. As part of the various Ground Investigations, a Ground Penetrating Radar survey has apparently now taken place – though we have yet to see a copy of the results. It is understood that this was hoped to be able to locate any unrecorded burial vaults or family tombs. It apparently identified an old pathway through the cemetery, but was otherwise less successful.
3.11. Trial trenching within the graveyard is provisionally expected to start in early July, and to run through the summer. The intention would be to establish the quality of survival of the burials, and the likely depths of the burial sequence. The cemetery lies within a wetland landscape, which is likely to favour organic preservation. Hence, an evaluation would indicate whether we have superimposed tiers of burials – and, if so, to what depth, and how many layers of burials might be expected in any one area; whether wooden coffins and textiles are likely to survive (and, if so, in what condition); whether soft tissue is likely to survive with any of the burials; whether or not any of the burials are in lead coffins, and whether or not any of thee coffins carry name-plates (which would help with the identification of individual burials). The information obtained from the evaluation would then inform the excavation strategy of any subsequent larger-scale archaeological excavation.
3.12. Part of the scheme now involves the construction of a footbridge over the A63, close to the Ask restaurant in the old Warehouse 6 building, to the west of Princes Dock Street. A design for that bridge has now been selected, and a scheme of archaeological works has been prepared to investigate the impact of its footings. Hull would like to see this bridge in place for 2017. Should the decision to undertake trial trenching be made, then those investigations could start as early as this summer – thereby allowing construction of the bridge to get underway by the beginning of 2016, ahead of any Development Consent Order for the rest of the road improvements scheme.
3.13. The Development Consent Order for the A63 scheme was originally scheduled to be submitted by the Highways Agency last autumn. However, new national regulations about air quality levels were introduced by DEFRA last summer; these meant that many more measurements would be needed over an extended period of months along the route. As Members may have seen in the press recently, this has led to a substantial delay in finalising the revised paperwork to accompany the Development Consent Order (DCO) application; but, none of this has been caused by the archaeology. The DCO is now expected to b submitted during the course of this autumn or winter, and will undoubtedly be a much stronger application, because of the additional time which has been allowed for its preparation.
What will happen next? 3.14. We presume that the trial trenching will begin in the Holy Trinity Burial Ground in early July, as planned. The results of that work will help to inform the proposals for any larger-scale archaeological works within the Burial Ground (e.g. it should give a much
69 clearer idea of the likely numbers of burials present, and of the quality of their survival). That, in turn, would help substantially to refine the estimates of the likely order of costs involved – the current estimates are based largely on educated guesswork, and previous experience with similar graveyards of this period. [But, any further work would have to wait for approval of the DCO by the Secretary of State.]
3.15. Similarly, once the results of the trial trenching are available, it is likely that agreement would be reached with Historic England and others about the likely size of any burial sample to be excavated, and where, and for how long these should be curated. That, in turn, would help to determine the final order of costs for such a project. Any larger-scale excavation would require a separate Faculty from the Diocese of York. A decision would also need to be made about when such an excavation should take place - and, particularly, whether that would clash with the proposals for the City of Culture.
3.16. As yet, no proposals have been seen for any archaeological work on the rest of the route of the A63 (i.e. on any of the sections of the route outside of the Burial Ground).
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).
70