IMPROVEMENT REVIEW
ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILDING CONSERVATION
(COUNTRYSIDE SERVICES)
SCOPING REPORT AND PROJECT BRIEF
1
GOAL OF THE REVIEW
1.1
To produce a set of practical recommendations which will lead to a
sustainable improvement in performance in the work of the Archaeology and
Building Conservation teams to meet customer needs and produce a ‘step
change’ in service delivery.
2
INTRODUCTION
2.1
This review will consider aspects of the County Council's services in respect of
the Archaeology and Building Conservation teams. Both of these elements
were left out of the recent best value review of Heritage and Countryside in
order to concentrate effort largely on Public Rights of Way. This best value
review was carried out between October 2002 and January 2004 . An
undertaking was made to review archaeology and building conservation
separately.
2.2
The theme of the review will cut across those areas of the County Council's
administration that deal with archaeology and building conservation.
3
BACKGROUND
3.1
The Best Value reviews of Public Rights of Way and Heritage were merged to
begin simultaneously during 2002/2003, in the form of a cross cutting review
of ‘Countryside Services’. Certain elements of the work of the Heritage
Service were thought to be less clearly linked to the countryside theme and it
was agreed that the work of the archaeology and building conservation teams
would be excluded and would be subject to a ‘Management Improvement
Review’ at a later date. However, the rural archaeology component was
included in the Best Value Review and the current Rural Archaeology post
was the outcome. This post has been operating for two years.
3.2
The final report and improvement plan was published in April 2004 and the
new Countryside Service was formed.
3.3
Following the appointment of a Heritage Manager in April 2005, the
Improvement Review was timetabled to commence in October/November
2005.
3.4
The Archaeology and Building Conservation Teams work within the Heritage
Section of the Countryside service and contribute to all the work of this
service.
3.5
The Heritage Section is currently organised into four teams:
Archaeology and building concervation improvement review scooping report
1




Archaeology Team – Responsible for conserving, promoting and maintaining
records of the archaeological resources of the county. This includes
monitoring development pressures to ensure that archaeological sites are
adequately protected or evaluated.
Building Conservation Team – Responsible for the County Council’s work
on protecting and enhancing historic buildings and conservation areas. This
includes maintaining a programme of grant aid in conjunction with other
agencies to encourage the sympathetic restoration of targeted buildings and
areas using traditional materials and techniques.
Landscape Team - Responsible for providing development control and policy
advice to the County Council on all landscape issues. The Team is also
responsible for project work, in particular the Swale and Ure Washlands
Project. Advice, guidance and scooping opinion is also provided to Utility
companies, Highways and Education.
Ecology - Responsible for providing development control and policy advice to
the County Council on all ecology issues. The team is also responsible for
coordinating biodiversity action plans and the identification and survey of
SINCS. Advice, guidance and scooping opinion is also provided to Utility
companies and Highways North Yorkshire.
3.6
The Improvement Review of Archaeology and Building Conservation will
complete the review of Countryside Services and allow the preparation of a
Heritage Strategy for North Yorkshire.
4.
BASELINE FOR THE REVIEW
4.1
The Review process has been informed by the Best Value Review of
Countryside Services, Countryside Service, Service Plan for 2005/06 and the
production of ‘Current Position Report’ for archaeology and building
conservation. These documents provide a valuable baseline assessment upon
which the Review can draw.
4.2
These reports set out the aims and objectives of the services and how they
link to the corporate priorities of the County Council, which aim to deliver
improved health, education and quality of life for North Yorkshire residents.
They describe existing policies and the relationship with service and corporate
plans. Delivery mechanisms are explained as well as the staffing and financial
resources which support the Service, its statutory basis and Government
expectations.
4.3
It is intended that the Review should be based firmly upon customer
expectations and outcomes of the Service and good practice. To this end,
certain steps have already been taken or are planned to ensure a strong
customer focus. Questionnaires have been designed and there has been
some circulation to customers and partners. Other customers, partners and
users of the two services will be contacted and asked about their preferred
method of consultation. This may involve written questionnaires only or
setting up a users group or a combination of both. All staff have been given
the opportunity to take part in a self-assessment of the Service and an EFQM
workshop has been held with staff, the results of which are contained in the
Archaeology and building concervation improvement review scooping report
2
current position report. Visits are planned to ‘good practice’ authorities, such
as Cambridgeshire County Council, to learn from experience elsewhere. The
Review is also able to draw upon the work of an established benchmarking
group covering the Northern Counties (including Lancashire). Because of the
small size of the teams being reviewed, a working group approach will not be
set up. The bulk of the research will be carried out by the Heritage Manager in
consultation with the Improvement Review Officer.
5.
SCOPE OF THE REVIEW
5.1
Principal Objective of the Review
To achieve a high quality archaeology and building conservation service
capable of continuing to deliver the following objectives:

To maintain and develop the county archaeological Historic Environment
Record (HER) for North Yorkshire.

To use the HER to provide and interpret information on the County's
archaeological resources for developers, contractors, government
agencies, educational establishments and the public.

To develop new systems for continuously improving the dissemination of
archaeological information to HER customers.

To provide a development control advisory service to the District Councils
on archaeological issues.

To monitor the condition of the County's archaeological heritage and to
promote measures to encourage its protection and conservation.

To encourage a diverse, thriving and professional private sector in the
provision of archaeological services.

To provide technical archaeological advice to other County Council Units
and to promote best practice throughout the authority.

To advise other agencies on the development of policy to protect the
archaeological heritage and on the implications of development and
management proposals.

Maintaining an historic building repair grant programme focused on
Conservation Areas and buildings at risk

Providing a planning policy and development control advisory service to
the County Council;

Developing guidance for the management and conservation of historic
buildings and structures;

Advising on the management and conservation of historic buildings and
structures.
Archaeology and building concervation improvement review scooping report
3
The review should also consider areas for improvement and development.
Examples are whether the Heritage Section should consider the provision of
urban design advice both to the County Council and as a service to the
Districts and whether more resource needs to be put into outreach work. The
review should also examine the case for increasing and improving public
access to the HER.
5.2
Policy Focus for the Review
Achieving this objective will help to deliver the County Council’s Heritage
Strategy, its Public Rights of Way policies and a number of its corporate
priorities. From April 2003, the County Council has adopted new corporate
priorities and the Countryside Service will meet these in the following ways:






“Security for all” - The provision of planning advice and guidance to the
Districts and the County Council helps to ensure that development takes
place in a sustainable way, without damaging the historic environment of
the County;
“Growing up for the future” - Continuation and development of outreach
work and community focussed archaeological research;
“Independence” – through providing opportunities for volunteers to
contribute to and obtain experience of the work of the service.
“Strengthening our economy” - The building conservation programme, by
helping to restore the historic fabric of the county’s principal market towns,
helps to foster civic pride, supports local employment and encourages
inward investment. The two sections also feed into National, Regional and
sub-regional strategy and policy relating to market town regeneration and
the enhancement of the rural economy through partnership working with
DEFRA in particular through the new Environmental Stewardship
Programmes. The positive management of change in the historic
environment is also intimately linked to quality of life factors which in turn
help to maintain and improve the economic well being.
“Looking after our heritage,” – As two of the four teams in Heritage,
Archaeology and Building Conservation have a major role in supporting
this objective. The Historic Environment underpins every aspect of our
present day environment and makes a significant contribution to the
quality of life for residents and visitors.; and
“Keeping in touch” – By clearly identifying customers and target
audiences, by keeping them involved in the process and by setting up
mechanisms to monitor and provide feedback on future improvements.
5.3
Customer Outcomes for the Review
5.4
Staff and some partners have been consulted on the scope of the review but
most of the advice has come from the Improvement Review Officer. This
scope will now provide the main focus of the Best Value Review. The Review
process will use the 4 Cs of Best Value (Consult, Compare, Challenge, and
Compete) to assess the performance of the service. It will lead to the
production of a 3 to 5 year costed Action Plan which will identify clearly how
the customer outcomes will be achieved through measurable performance
Archaeology and building concervation improvement review scooping report
4
indicators. The Action Plan will set ‘smart’ targets, which will be delivered
through the regular preparation, monitoring and review of annual Service
Performance Plans.
6
APPROACH
6.1
The Review will use the 4 Cs of Best Value to evaluate performance and
consider service delivery options.
6.2
Consult. The Review will undertake a wide-ranging consultation with
principal stakeholders, customers and other relevant audiences, through
questionnaires, focus groups, direct interviews and other appropriate means to
obtain views on current performance and areas for improvement and
development. Staff, members and the following will also be consulted as part
of the Review:
Areas for
improvement /
development
Provision of an
archaeology service.
Stakeholders
Customers
English Heritage
DEFRA
Forestry Commission
Farmers and
landowners
Commercial Agents
Farming and Wildlife
Advisory Group, Internal
customers within NYCC,
District Councils,
Developers,
Contractors,
Consultants and The
Public
District Councils,
English Heritage, The
Public
Provision of a building
conservation service
6.3
Compare. The Review will examine service delivery methods in other
authorities through benchmarking, questionnaire surveys, direct contact, visits
and other appropriate means. Contact will be made with some or all of the
following County Councils to compare performance:
Audit Commission
Family of Comparator
Authorities
Northern Counties
Benchmarking Group
Cambridgeshire
Cheshire
Cornwall
Cumbria
Devon
Dorset
Gloucestershire
Lincolnshire
Norfolk
Northumberland
Cumbria
Durham
Lancashire
Authorities
Considered to
Represent Good
Practice
Cheshire
Devon
Essex
Lincolnshire
Worcestershire
Durham
Northumberland
Cambridgeshire
Archaeology and building concervation improvement review scooping report
5
Audit Commission
Family of Comparator
Authorities
Northern Counties
Benchmarking Group
Authorities
Considered to
Represent Good
Practice
Shropshire
Somerset
Suffolk
Warwickshire
Wiltshire
Worcestershire
6.4
Compete. The Review will carry out a detailed options appraisal for the
service.
6.5
Challenge. Using information from all the above, the Review will rigorously
challenge the need to provide the service and its provision. It will then produce
a Final Report and action plan detailing its recommendations for the future
provision of the service.
Objective
To obtain staff
challenges to the
current service and their
vision of the future
service
To challenge the current
service and contribute to
the vision of the future
service from a customer
perspective
To challenge and
contribute to the vision
of the future service
To challenge current
systems and explore
how to maximise the
use of IT to support the
future Countryside
services
Stakeholders
Focus group
EFQM exercise with
staff
Customers
Workshop with users
drawn from the
representative groups
above
Joint workshop with
representatives of
external organisations
Interviews and meetings
with those responsible
locally for the services.
Discussion with the Egovernment officers – in
the directorate and the
Council
7
TIMETABLE
7.1
An indicative timetable is attached at Appendix 1 for the review. It sets out
clear stages in the Review process together with target dates and key
meetings of the Review Panel and the Environmental Services Scrutiny
Committee.
8
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeology and building concervation improvement review scooping report
6
8.1
Timescale. The timescale for the Review is tight aiming for completion of the
final report in March 2006. However, the small scale of the service area should
allow this deadline to be reached.
8.2
Resources. An initial sounding out of views regarding the Council’s building
conservation team have indicated that the Districts and English Heritage would
welcome an urban design skill to particularly work more closely with Highways.
The Principal Conservation officer post has not been filled since the post
holder’s retirement in April 2005 in order to fully assess the options around this
post. The current Conservation Officer is ‘acting up’ as Principal Conservation
Officer and is able to continue the grant work. However, other aspects of the
work such as policy and development control are under pressure. The Review
Team will need to consider which direction the building conservation team
should go in the future. Development of the HER as an on-line resource will
be a significant outcome for the service but will need to be resourced. It is
hoped that the majority of funds for this can be obtained from the Heritage
Lottery but the Council will still need to identify match funding. The review
Team will need to consider both the desirability of this outcome and how funds
can be identified. There is no doubt that there is very little spare capacity in
the Services for additional work. Consequently, the Review Team and / or
Senior Managers will need to give direction on Service priorities throughout
the review process.
8.3
Logistics. As the Teams under review are County based, any consultations
with other County Councils may necessitate visits to other authorities. The
distances involved could be considerable given that some of the better
performing authorities are located in the south of England.
8.4
Ongoing Service Changes. There are a number of initiatives that will need to
be progressed before the end of the financial year in order to take advantage
of available funding streams. One of these relates to an English Heritage
funded project called the Extensive Urban Survey Programme, part of their
national resource characterisation programme. North Yorkshire has been
identified as a priority area by English Heritage and funds have been ring
fenced subject to the submission of a research design and project
specification. To wait until the end of the review to engage additional
resources may lead to the loss of these funds. English Heritage continue to
undergo reorganisation and there is a fundamental review of priorities . It is
important therefore that the Review process recognises this fluid situation.
Ongoing improvements highlighted during the review process will also be
implemented where appropriate. However, the Review Team or Chair will be
consulted prior to any changes being introduced.
9.
DEPENDENCIES
9.1
Supply of Information. Clearly, the 4C’s of the Review process are very
much dependent upon other parties’ willingness to co-operate. Experience of
other Reviews would tend to suggest that this could be patchy. Local
Authorities are constantly consulting each other and this does lead to a certain
amount of apathy or lack of priority. In addition, private concerns could be
reluctant to impart information about their costs or expend any resources on
Archaeology and building concervation improvement review scooping report
7
this Review if they did not believe that there was a realistic prospect of them
benefiting from the process.
10.
RECOMMENDED
That the Environmental Services Scrutiny Committee be requested to agree to
the following recommendations. That: 1.
the scope of the Best Value Review includes the whole of archaeology
and building conservation including the Rural Archaeology element
which has already been examined as part of the Countryside Service
Best Value review;
2.
the review of archaeology should particularly examine the development
of the HER and the issue of creating an on-line resource;
3.
the review of building conservation should examine existing work and
potential new duties and responsibilities to fully reflect the latest
national, regional and sub-regional policy and guidance;
4.
the review should examine links with other County Council services,
particularly libraries and the Public Record Office
Appendix 1
Milestones
Scoping the
Review
Consult
Compare
Challenge
Compete
Interim Position
Date
Key Action
Throughout
 User/staff consultation
October/November
30thNovember
2005

October/January
2005
February 2005


December/January 
2005

December/January 
2005 /06

Beginning
February 2006
January 2006


Current Position Report and
Project Brief to be presented
to Scrutiny Committee. The
committee to agree the scope
of the review
Consultation carried out
Resource
Performance
Officer and
Lead Officer
Performance
Officer and
Lead Officer
Lead Officer
Review Team
and
Consultation Analysed
Performance
Officer
Review Team
Benchmarking and contacts
with other authorities/suppliers Lead Officer
Visits?
Review Team
Assessment of existing
Performance
performance data
and Lead
Assessment of performance
Officers
against national and regional
data
Identify options and appraisal Review Team
criteria
Review Team
Submission to Scrutiny
Archaeology and building concervation improvement review scooping report
8
Milestones
Statement
Date
Key Action
Resource
and Officers
Final Report
and Action Plan
March 2005

Review Team
and Service
Officers
Review Team

26 April 2005


First draft of Final Report and
Action Plan to be considered
by the Review Team
Final Report and Action plan
to be considered by the
Review Team
Final Report and Action Plan
to be presented to Scrutiny
Committee by the Review
Team. Committee to agree
the recommendations to made
to the Executive
Recommendations of the
review Team to be presented
to the Executive by the Chair
of the Review Team
Archaeology and building concervation improvement review scooping report
Review team
Review Team
9