ALGAO has published new research exploring how local authority archaeological services can navigate the current programme of local government reorganisation in England.
ALGAO writes:
In December 2024, the UK government set out plans for a programme of local government
reorganisation (LGR) under which the remaining 21 areas of two-tier local authorities in England would be replaced with single-tier unitary local authorities. The current LGR cycle is described as a once-in-a-lifetime redrawing of the local government landscape, which will have a profound and wide-reaching impact upon the affected areas.
In implementing LGR, the government stated that they intend to learn from the experiences and successes of other authorities during the previous phases of LGR. As the Special Interest Group to the Local Government Association (LGA), ALGAO:UK is supporting those archaeological services which will be affected by the current round of LGR. This report draws upon the experiences of local authority archaeological services which have already undergone LGR, with a view to providing guidance and making recommendations to those who will be experiencing LGR in the near future.
All of the individuals spoken to as part of the current research have been positive about the benefits brought to the archaeological services of which they are a part as a result of the transition to a unitary authority. It is widely felt that with a proactive and opportunistic approach, it is possible to engage with and shape the LGR process and achieve positive outcomes for local authority archaeological services across the board.
In order to gain the best outcomes, local authority staff need to be actively engaged with and respond proactively to the LGR process. It is recommended that services should conduct a detailed service review, providing a better understanding of the existing service and the potential for its future development, and use this to develop a service summary, which clearly, concisely and compellingly sets out the vision for the service during and after LGR. ALGAO:UK has an important role to play in this process and should provide sector-wide support for the assessment and promotion of archaeological services as part of the LGR process.
One of the primary functions of local authority archaeological services is to provide archaeological advice to LPAs in order to ensure that all development and other land-use takes into account the need properly to conserve archaeological heritage. There are a number of identified benefits to the flattening of the existing two-tier structure which will be brought about by LGR. Archaeological services should use LGR as an opportunity to build partnerships with other specialist advisors with a view to more collaborative working, potentially as part of a unified advisory service. In particular, archaeological services should explore opportunities to collaborate with conservation officers, breaking down the existing divide between first- and second-tier advisors.
Another of the primary functions of local authority archaeological services is the development and maintenance of comprehensive public information resources for the understanding and enjoyment of the historic environment. It is recommended that Historic Environment Records should be hosted within archaeological services, alongside the team responsible for providing archaeological planning advice. It is important that HER and archaeological planning functions should not be separated during the LGR process and, where possible, service functions which are currently separated should be united.
There are a number of different service-delivery models which might result from LGR: the transition from a two-tier authority to a county-unitary authority, which covers the same administrative area; the division of a former county area into smaller unitary authorities while county-wide services are provided as a joint service; and the division of archaeological services into smaller individual services serving each new unitary area.
Those spoken to in the course of this research consider that the transition to a county-unitary authority was the easiest for archaeological services to accommodate and benefit from. Most of the affected archaeological services were already operating with a county-wide remit, supported by a county HER, and had been for many decades. The operational continuity of archaeological services was largely unaffected by LGR and there was no need to establish any joint services or to sub-divide the service between smaller authorities. It is recommended that archaeological services should be integrated into a team of specialist advisors nested within or allied to the planning service in order to ensure that the efficacy of service delivery is improved. Where former counties are subdivided into smaller unitary authorities, it is often the case that an archaeological service will retain its former geographical coverage and provide advice to the new unitary authorities under a wider joint service agreement. When providing a joint service, flexible working practices and technological innovation should be used to ensure equity of coverage across the authorities being served. In establishing new joint services, archaeological services should be open-minded about developing new hosting arrangements, which need not be dictated or constrained by the status quo. While this model does not have the benefit of bringing together planning and specialist advisory functions, it is likely that other specialist advisors will also be part of the joint service, potentially including conservation officers.
While the county-unitary and joint-service delivery models represent the preferred methods of archaeological service delivery, it is recognised that there are instances when the implementation of these models simply is not possible for a variety of physical, financial, ideological or political reasons. Serious consideration should be given to the desirability of dividing existing archaeological services, as this can be a costly and largely irreversible process, albeit one which can bring its own benefits. Any sub-divided archaeological services should be appropriately resourced and staffed, with suitable recognition of the distinct requirements of the development management and HER functions. The sub-division of existing archaeological services should be seen as an opportunity for a fresh start which need not be dictated or constrained by the status quo and which can result in improved service delivery.
Finally, every LGR restructure has been followed by a period of consolidation, review and refinement which has seen problems addressed and amendments made. Following LGR, archaeological services should keep their delivery model and service performance under review, with concerns and suggestions for improvement proactively fed-back to the relevant senior officers responsible for managing the service and setting strategic priorities. Undoubtedly, LGR will have a significant impact across the landscape of local government in the coming years and ALGAO: UK has an increasingly important role to play in assisting and supporting archaeological services to navigate their way through the LGR process. It is noted that the existing national and regional committees and discussion groups already provide a good vehicle for such communications, and these networks will become even more important as the current LGR cycle progresses.
