When I assumed office in June 1997 the situation was far from satisfactory in relation to the protection of the architectural and archaeological heritage. On the architectural side, there was no framework in place for the structured protection of buildings of value. I acted immediately, therefore, on the report of the interdepartmental working group on strengthening the protection of the architectural heritage, published in 1996. This involved, inter alia, establishing within my Department a new division dedicated to dealing with the protection of the architectural heritage. The division has responsibility for compiling the national inventory of architectural heritage, NIAH, in which an estimated 1 million structures ultimately will be recorded. The NIAH is used as the basis for my recommendations to local authorities on what structures ought to be included in their records of protected structures.
The division provides expert advice in the form of guidelines on acceptable works to structures included in the record as well as advising on proposed developments which impact on protected structures. A total of 15 staff have been recruited to this new division and I am satisfied that good progress has been made in establishing the framework. Nevertheless, there is still much work to be done. Survey work on the NIAH needs to be stepped up in order that information can be fed to the local authorities sooner. In this regard, my Department recently enlarged the pool of consultants available to do this work.
The protection of the architectural heritage is primarily a matter for planning authorities and my role is mainly advisory. Local authorities need to establish their records of protected structures without further delay. They can employ their own conservation officers to assist them in their regu latory role. While some have been appointed to date, there must be more appointments and a much greater take-up of such posts if the new measures are to be effective and consistently applied.
On the protection of the archaeological heritage, I can also report good progress. The archaeological service of my Department had been experiencing difficulties as it sought to grapple with the increasing impact on archaeological sites and monuments arising from the upsurge in building activity. Matters came to a head in early 2000 when the backlog of work became so intolerable that the issuing of new licences had to be suspended for a number of weeks. At the same time, my Department's capacity to deal with underwater archaeological issues had to be suspended as the existing contract for the provision of this service came to an end.
The appointment of an additional eight archaeologists has been authorised to ease this pressure of work. Long-standing contractual difficulties in relation to a further 17 archaeologists employed on contract in my Department have also been resolved.
Additional InformationThe net result of these initiatives is that the cadre of archaeologists within my Department has more than doubled in the past year with 40 archaeologists now employed. I am satisfied that there has been a major improvement in the staffing levels for the protection of the built heritage and the matter will be kept under review.