Cuts jeopardise York's heritage, experts warn (From York Press)

Disgusting hypocrisy. James Alexander and his cronies are jumping on the Richard III bandwagon, but evidently couldn't care less about York's real history.

RosieRussell wrote:
Disgusting hypocrisy. James Alexander and his cronies are jumping on the Richard III bandwagon, but evidently couldn't care less about York's real history.

Couldn't agree more - instead of A&E wasting money on an ill-judged and doomed to failure campaign, they should spend the money on saving local conservation jobs that should protect our city's heritage for years to come.

What a joke, a mindless decision, it's already difficult enough to liaise with planners and conservationist within the 8 or 12 week determination period.

This proposal will certainly grind the decision making process to a hault, putting the brakes on more schemes around the City.

I recall reading an article on here only last week about how CoYC were sending 2 delegates off to Frances to promote development opportunities in York to our European developers, the cost of the trip was circa £25k which i suspect could have suported 1½ memebers of the conservation team for another year?

There are hefty charges made for archeaological digs. This should be self financing and not an issue.
Consultations with Conservation officers whose prime role appears to be to stop ANT changes are genrally fraught. Anyone who has seen 'the planners'on tv will see just how difficult they can be
Of course our heritage needs protecting but change also needs to be allowed to let buildings be adapted to satisfy modern needs. If there were more realism in the Conservation department and understanding of the needs of people and buildings rather than a blind 'dont do it' stance then they may have more sympathy but I suspect most who have dealt with them have found it a nightmare experience.

Less building work being done, less ground disturbed, less archaeologists needed.

Perhaps the arts bargeproject being sunk
would pay for this team for years

It is important to remember that archaeology, like it or not, is embedded in the current planning system. Whilst the actual excavation is carried out by commercial units who tender competitively for the work from the developer, this does not cover the cost of the related advice and enforcement. Lack of adequate support for this is a real risk- potentially leaving the council open to legal action or costly planning appeals and reviews. It is not just the case of supporting the Archaeology Officer, the council needs to commit to supporting the associated Historic Environment Record as per the National Planning Framework. It is very hard to think of a town in the UK with the range and richness of below ground and above ground historic environment - this decision potentially threatens this for what appears to be a relatively nugatory saving

Its astounding that one year the council recognizes the importance of our buried archaeology by bidding for World Heritage status, while the next year it wants to remove the advice to the planning authority that is the only protection for archaeology within the planning system!

Nobody wins from this crazy plan: developers will get massive delays in the planning system, York's irreplaceable heritage will be at risk, and if statutory obligations are not fulfilled the council risks being taken to court. On top of that, the city will become a national laughing stock for wilfully failing to defend our amazing archaeology.

As ever these cuts and redundancies will be thought up by the middle/senior managers who are the very ones who should be getting the chop but they won't be giving themselves the boot will they? Most council departments could cut management by 50% and services would not be effected

fulfordphilosopher wrote:
As ever these cuts and redundancies will be thought up by the middle/senior managers who are the very ones who should be getting the chop but they won't be giving themselves the boot will they? Most council departments could cut management by 50% and services would not be effected

Have you undertaken an organisational design looking at responsibilities, spans of control, role profiles etc to arrive at this conclusion?

Or are you just a know nothing spouting cr@p?

Fourkov wrote:

fulfordphilosopher wrote:
As ever these cuts and redundancies will be thought up by the middle/senior managers who are the very ones who should be getting the chop but they won't be giving themselves the boot will they? Most council departments could cut management by 50% and services would not be effected

Have you undertaken an organisational design looking at responsibilities, spans of control, role profiles etc to arrive at this conclusion?

Or are you just a know nothing spouting cr@p?

No no sounds like I know more than you. I have worked for them and have plenty of examples. Are you by any chance one of the said managers? You sound like it.

Some cuts really stink but I don't think this is one of them. Sympathy on a personal level to those affected but does the council really need to employ archaelogists and conservationists? Yes we are a heritage city of world importance but as a result we have the wonderful York Archaeological Trust here, responsible for Coppergate/Jorvik to call upon. And if they are busy we also happen to have the Council for British Archaeology based in the city and this is not to mention one of the most widely respected Civic trusts in the country. In case we feel we might miss the odd conservationist perhaps we can console ourselves we the fact that York Museums Trust employs quite a few, the University trains loads of them at the wonderful Kings Manor and should that not be enough we have the regional headquarters of not only National Trust and English Heritage here in the city. So come on, the issue here isn't should we keep them, but with all that talent on our doorstep why did we feel the need to employ them in the firstplace

fulfordphilosopher wrote:

Fourkov wrote:

fulfordphilosopher wrote:
As ever these cuts and redundancies will be thought up by the middle/senior managers who are the very ones who should be getting the chop but they won't be giving themselves the boot will they? Most council departments could cut management by 50% and services would not be effected

Have you undertaken an organisational design looking at responsibilities, spans of control, role profiles etc to arrive at this conclusion?

Or are you just a know nothing spouting cr@p?

No no sounds like I know more than you. I have worked for them and have plenty of examples. Are you by any chance one of the said managers? You sound like it.

I see. You have done the analysis through your internal studies. Are you going to enlighten everyone with your revised organisational design?

And no, I have nothing to do with the council. Just interested in how management could be cut by 50% with no impact. I'm seeking education as it may help me in my job.

Ex CYC wrote:
Some cuts really stink but I don't think this is one of them. Sympathy on a personal level to those affected but does the council really need to employ archaelogists and conservationists? Yes we are a heritage city of world importance but as a result we have the wonderful York Archaeological Trust here, responsible for Coppergate/Jorvik to call upon. And if they are busy we also happen to have the Council for British Archaeology based in the city and this is not to mention one of the most widely respected Civic trusts in the country. In case we feel we might miss the odd conservationist perhaps we can console ourselves we the fact that York Museums Trust employs quite a few, the University trains loads of them at the wonderful Kings Manor and should that not be enough we have the regional headquarters of not only National Trust and English Heritage here in the city. So come on, the issue here isn't should we keep them, but with all that talent on our doorstep why did we feel the need to employ them in the firstplace

None of the organisations that you mention do what the city archaeologist does, i.e. advise the planning authority/run the Historic Environment Record, etc.

York council would need to pay them to carry out the role. judging by other examples, I'm not entirely certain that bringing in external consultants to provide expertise that was formerly available in-house would be the cheap option...

One other point, national planning fees went up again late last year which covers the conservation teams role, so were expected to pay more for a less than satisfactory service which is now proposed to get even worse.

Sounds very similar to the green bins charge principal to me - pay more for less!

Bo Jolly wrote:

Ex CYC wrote:
Some cuts really stink but I don't think this is one of them. Sympathy on a personal level to those affected but does the council really need to employ archaelogists and conservationists? Yes we are a heritage city of world importance but as a result we have the wonderful York Archaeological Trust here, responsible for Coppergate/Jorvik to call upon. And if they are busy we also happen to have the Council for British Archaeology based in the city and this is not to mention one of the most widely respected Civic trusts in the country. In case we feel we might miss the odd conservationist perhaps we can console ourselves we the fact that York Museums Trust employs quite a few, the University trains loads of them at the wonderful Kings Manor and should that not be enough we have the regional headquarters of not only National Trust and English Heritage here in the city. So come on, the issue here isn't should we keep them, but with all that talent on our doorstep why did we feel the need to employ them in the firstplace

None of the organisations that you mention do what the city archaeologist does, i.e. advise the planning authority/run the Historic Environment Record, etc.

York council would need to pay them to carry out the role. judging by other examples, I'm not entirely certain that bringing in external consultants to provide expertise that was formerly available in-house would be the cheap option...

I understand your point but In-house public sector specialists are rarely cheap given the high employment costs a £40k a year post will cost in excess £75k before they actually do anything so they need a budget as well to operate. I wasn't thinking of these other organisations as external consultants more as heritage partners that could perform a role in return for other benefits such as accommodation within the new offices. Isn't that what the public sector is being asked to do remove the duplication? And the role that the City Archaeologist carries out isn't statutory to my knowledge and from the planning side mirrors very closely the statutory guidance role of English Heritage. Yes it would take some adjusting but it is achievable. I take it you are not suggesting that there is no other agency or individual capable of carrying out these roles merely that they haven't up until now

Ex CYC wrote:
Some cuts really stink but I don't think this is one of them. Sympathy on a personal level to those affected but does the council really need to employ archaelogists and conservationists? Yes we are a heritage city of world importance but as a result we have the wonderful York Archaeological Trust here, responsible for Coppergate/Jorvik to call upon. And if they are busy we also happen to have the Council for British Archaeology based in the city and this is not to mention one of the most widely respected Civic trusts in the country. In case we feel we might miss the odd conservationist perhaps we can console ourselves we the fact that York Museums Trust employs quite a few, the University trains loads of them at the wonderful Kings Manor and should that not be enough we have the regional headquarters of not only National Trust and English Heritage here in the city. So come on, the issue here isn't should we keep them, but with all that talent on our doorstep why did we feel the need to employ them in the firstplace

Sir,

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but in stating it openly one should be aware of the facts. YAT are one of a number of organizations that amongst other things, undertake field work here in York. The role of the principal archaeologist is to work within the planning framework and determine what risk a development carries to heritage. If work is required this goes out to tender and the developer responsible for paying the bill chooses the winning bidder. This organization then undertakes the work on behalf of the developer and in accordance with the conditions set as part of the planning process. Many of the organizations you have listed are not specialists in dealing with below ground remains. Your assumption is incorrect, it would be akin to getting a dentist to replace your hip on the grounds that they had some medical training. Archaeology is taking place throughout the country on sites big and small all year round. Reducing the conservation team would not only jeopardise the heritage of the city, which is of course a massive pull factor bringing money into the city, it would also slow down the mechanisms by which any developer navigates the planning process.

Call them 'external consultants', call them 'heritage partners' but they will still require payment whether its in kind or in cash. And I think you underestimate the duties involved - elements of what the city archaeologist and the other members of the team do are statutory, other elements ensure that the planning department fulfils ITS legal obligations. This is not the sort of job that any organisation would take on for free in return for the use of a council 'hot desk' as you seem to be suggesting.

The law and government guidance around heritage in the planning process is complex (some would say necessarily so) and the role of English Heritage (themselves cut to the bone) is not the same; they deal with different aspects of the planning system. Its a bit like saying 'why do we need traffic police when the AA exists'.

I came across this article (google news). I am a conservation officer elsewhere in the country who trained in York. It takes years to gain the experience and training to be a conservation officer. No-one would claim that development control planners (colleagues) have the same skills, so this begs the question: how is it possible to carry out the workload with staff level below the minimum? Who else would do the statutory work of the conservation officer in York, should these cuts be carried out? No-one else would, the deadlines would be impossible to meet and everyone loses out - the public who would not get advice (only time for casework to be carried out), developers would be held up and York city would be the loser.
What people don't know is the huge amount of work we do behind the scenes to improve the design and heritage elements of development and prevent harm.
Heritage-led regeneration is the way forward and adds great value to cities.

This is a mind-numbingly short-sighted decision by a Council which seems to have lost the plot on many fronts.

York's heritage and its economic growth go absolutely hand-in-hand and are not mutually exclusive. Our ability to attract not only tourism, but also investment from outside the City in business and financial services and other sectors, relies heavily on our 'quality of place' - the range of housing, schools, cultural and other facilities that we can offer to attract people and businesses to the City. Our heritage is absolutely fundamental to this, and there is an abundance of research from all over the world to back this up.

The Government (which I can't help but note is of a very different political persuasion to Labour-controlled City of York Council) has failed to provide any substantive evidence that our planning system acts as a greater barrier to development than any of our major European competitors. Yet CYC is adopting an even more extreme position in its views on the role of planning and conservation specialists in the development process.

The team of conservation, archaeology and environmental specialists at the City Council have played a vital role in saving and re-using many historic buildings across our City. They undoubtedly see their role as enabling development which meets the high standards that we should set ourselves as one of Europe's most historic cities. Do we really want to turn York into a characterless clone town with lowest common denominator architecture and where anything goes?

With or without the team at CES, the Council still has various statutory responsibilities which it has to fulfill as a planning authority. Without their specialist advice - which despite the rubbish spouted elsewhere on this forum, isn't readily available in other organisations across the City - new development will grind to a halt and we'll see less, not more, of the housing and jobs that we need. Hardly 'open for business.' Oh and by the way, the new system of local government finance - being introduced from next month - means that local authorities will be even more dependent on generating business rates (and hence attracting new development) to fund essential services..... CYC runs the risk of shooting itself in the foot again and needs to be very careful what it wishes for here.

If it helps fourkov my advise would be to not rely on the procedures you mention all the time. They would appear not to have always worked in the past