Holme-next-the-Sea Timber Circle Forum

Report of the Forum to the Area Museums Committee
October 2000

1.  Introduction

• 1.1  The Holme-next-the-Sea Timber Circle Forum, which first met in September 1999 in Hunstanton, took the decision at that meeting to seek a display of the Bronze Age timber circle from Holme.

• 1.2  This paper has been produced by the Holme Timber Circle Working Group which was established by the Forum.  The Working Group has met three times at the Council Offices of King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council in Hunstanton since January 2000.

• 1.3  The Working Group was charged with exploration of the implications of the decision to seek a display and with setting out a critical path for successful implementation of a display.

• 1.4  This report of the Holme Forum builds upon a document prepared by the Working Group which was discussed by the Forum in Hunstanton on 21 September 2000.  The paper remains a draft for discussion with residents of Holme parish at a meeting in Holme Village Hall.  Thereafter the paper (with any revisions necessary as a result of the meeting in Holme) will be finalised by the Working Group on behalf of the Forum and taken to the West Norfolk Area Museums Committee on 25 October 2000 with recommendations for action.

2.  Background - the timbers

• 2.1  It will be seen below (paragraph 3.1) that, at its meeting in September 2000, the Forum recognised that there should be two broad options with regard to the future of the timbers:  replacement of the timbers on the beach (either fully buried or with timbers protruding in a similar manner as found);  or conservation and display of the timbers off the beach at another location.

• 2.2  A pre-requisite for any display off the beach is effective conservation of the timbers.  This is a fairly urgent requirement as ancient organic material is, by its very nature, unstable and delays in treatment will lead to deterioration.

• 2.3  Such treatment is normally the responsibility of the display agency.  Identification of a display agency is part of the process of establishing a viable path for implementing a display but such identification is clearly some way distant.

• 2.4   Exceptionally, however, English Heritage has offered to fund the necessary conservation work.  This ensures that the timbers will be conserved and thus available for display.  It is anticipated that conservation of the smaller timbers will take between 2 and 3 years with the large (central) timber taking between 3 and 5 years.  In order to enable public access to the timbers, the feasibility of undertaking the conservation work at the Norfolk Rural Life Museum, Gressenhall is currently being explored.  This arrangement would enable public access on a secure site with regular monitoring by NM& AS's conservation staff.

• 2.5  It is currently intended that conservation work will start in the autumn/winter 2000-2001.  Preparation for such conservation is proceeding but it will not be possible to initiate any work unless it is clear that a return of the timbers to the beach is not viable.  Resolution of the viability or otherwise of a return of the timbers to the beach is therefore an urgent requirement.

• 2.6  Assuming that conservation will be required, it will be necessary to identify an appropriate grant-receiving body to enable English Heritage to pay the conservation grant, discussions are proceeding between officers of English Heritage, the Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service and the Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk to identify an appropriate mechanism, separate from the considerations of this paper.

3.  Outline proposals for the timbers

• 3.1  Following receipt of the Working Group's report in September 2000, the Forum resolved that the option of returning the timbers to the beach at Holme should be explored.  Consultation will need to take place with local people, the landowner, stewards of the site and agencies such as English Nature.

• 3.2  As stated above (paragraph 2.6), the viability or otherwise of this option needs early resolution.

• 3.3  Concerning the option of off-site display, the Forum agreed that it was important to determine the broad scope of any proposed display at the outset in order to inform later discussions concerning location, capital funding, revenue resourcing and long-term display 'refreshment' (in order to maintain visitor appeal and relevance).

• 3.4  In discussing the scope of any proposed display it was agreed that the circle in itself would not be a viable attraction.  Attention was drawn to the Bronze Age site at Flag Fen where, with very many more timbers and a much larger catchment area close to arterial routes, visitor numbers rarely exceed 14,000 per annum.  Accordingly, the achieve viability, any display would need to place the circle within a wider context.

• 3.5  It was noted that the circle represents early use of metal tools, symbolising humanity's use and exploitation of the natural environment.   Accordingly, it was agreed that any display should seek to investigate the development of the landscape in West Norfolk through time, utilising the circle as a focal point.

• 3.6  Such an approach would need to be explored in tandem with currently adopted strategies for museums development in West Norfolk as already agreed by the King's Lynn and West Norfolk Area Museums Committee.  In the light of this, it is anticipated, therefore, that any display proposal will need to be progressed outside the MN& AS although the Service will clearly be available to provide technical and other support to any initiative.

• 3.7  Concerning audience, it was recognised that a display would not necessarily attract large numbers of visitors but that, with a sensitive approach, it could be of national or even international appeal to special interest groups in particular.  A Feasibility Study by an appropriate consultant will be needed to explore the different types of potential audience in order to maximise visitor potential but the Working Group did explore educational potential in outline.

• 3.8  While an explicit link to the National Curriculum is desirable, it should e noted that there is currently no National Curriculum requirement to study the Bronze Age (although it is recommended that any revisions to the National Curriculum are monitored carefully).  It is possible to study an aspect of local history as part of Key Stage 2 History (7-11 year olds)  but this is a limited audience and most schools prefer to study more recent history that students can relate to more easily.  It was agreed, therefore, that the recommended contextual approach for a display provided the opportunity for links with geographical and scientific aspects   of the curriculum, thus targeting more students and increasing the potential for greater visitor numbers.

• 3.9  The potential of links with adult education was also discussed.  While there is more likelihood of direct linkage with prehistory, numbers are smaller with little scope for dramatic impact on overall visitor figures.   However, both adult and schools education could be explored more thoroughly by a Feasibility  Study.

• 3.10  It was recognised that visitor expectations will be high and that it will be important not to disappoint.  Passive displays of the timbers themselves will be insufficient and the display will therefore need to exploit the potential of traditional approaches mixed with high quality reconstructions, audio-visuals and other media.

• 3.11  Any display proposals will need to involve local people in consultations to ensure that there is local input and support.  The mechanism for most effective consultation could also form part of a Feasibility Study.

• 3.12  It will become clear (see below) that an independent Feasibility Study is considered critical for all three key aspects of any display proposal.  A brief for such a Study could be produced by the Working Group.   Identification of an agency to pay for a Feasibility Study is also necessary.

4.  Location

• 4.1  Location of any off-site display will depend upon a number of factors including: planning issu4es; relationship to the Site of Special Scientific Interest, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other designated locations; relationship to other attractions;  availability of sites;  attendant facilities;  and local requirement.

• 4.2  The Working Group explored location in terms of site and building.  The two are linked as a building is a necessary requirement for a display.  It is not possible to display the timber circle in an open air environment as the conserved wood will deteriorate rapidly if removed from a stable and controlled environment.

• 4.3  A building is therefore a prerequisite, from which follow implications with regard to the site.  It is fair to state that the Working Group was divided with regard to a site, some members arguing forcefully for a preferred location within Holme parish, others arguing the opposite.

• 4.4  To summarise the issues:  there is some strong local feeling that the circle should be displayed within Holme parish.  However, the parish does lie within a sensitive Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and there will be widely-agreed AONB policies, strategies and best practice considerations to take into account.  The parish includes part of a candidate Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar site.  These international nature conservation designations recognise the sensitivity of the area to disturbance.  The scope of any proposed attraction, projections of visitor numbers and potential impact upon the local environment and infrastructure will therefore all be considerations in selecting a suitable site.

• 4.5  Allied to this, the type of building will need careful consideration.  New build, while obviously expensive, will provide the most simple solution with regard to the necessity for an appropriate environment to ensure safe curation of the timbers.

• 4.6  Use of a converted existing building can also be considered and the Working Group explored one such possibility in outline at Holme while bearing in mind that other possibilities would also need to be examined.  While it was clear that local planning constraints were not necessarily insuperable, it has been pointed out subsequent to the discussion of the Working Group that the site is immediately adjacent to the North Norfolk Coast SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) and the NNC Special Protection Area and that it is likely that English Nature would require an environmental assessment.  These observations emphasise that nay proposals for development of a display centre in the Holme area will require very careful consideration.

• 4.7  The relationship of any display to other attractions in West Norfolk also needs careful consideration.  The Working Group agreed that a display of the timber circle should seek to avoid negative impact on existing attractions, that the potential difficulty of financing a stand-alone display should be acknowledged, and that possible 'bolt-on' options to existing attractions should also be explored.

• 4.8  Once again it seems sensible to recommend that an independent Feasibility Study assesses the potential and constraints of various options and reports back.  These options will need to be considered within environmental, spatial planning, tourism and social contexts and constraints in order to provide a rounded assessment of potential linked to the needs of the community, stewards and users of the local area.  Consideration of options should extend to consideration of the most appropriate building for any proposed display.

5.  Funding

• 5.1  The Working Group explored both the capital and the revenue implications of any display.  Discussion was difficult without a known 'end-user' so the presumption was made that any display was likely to be the responsibility of an independent trust or similar body with strong input from the local community and local elected bodies.  An independent Feasibility Study should make recommendations for appropriate structures for oversight of a capital programme, business planning, academic content and operation.

• 5.2  Capital funding, either for new build or conversion of an existing structure, will almost certainly require an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund and other funding bodies.  Definition=on of an 'end-user' body to promote such applications will be an early requirement of any display proposals.   Once again, an independent Feasibility Study should explore options for such a body and make a recommendation.  This recommendation would then need to be acted upon early in any process to develop a display option and it is suggested that local authorities would probably be best placed to have oversight of the constitution of the end-user and monitoring of its activities.

• 5.3  Matched funding for the capital costs was explored, including the possibility of European funding.  It was pointed out that a display project may meet Objective 2 funding criteria and it was recognised that local authorities could have important roles here in helping to facilitate such funding.

• 5.4  Revenue costs are perhaps of greater concern that those required for capital development.  The Working Group was anxious that any display should be both viable and sustainable although it recognised the difficulty of achieving these goals in an area of low population density and probable low visitor numbers.   It is the view of museum officers that it will be impossible to generate sufficient income to cover revenue costs and identification of a regular source or sources of subsidy will be3 necessary.  A rigorous Business Plan will be required, monitored closely by an appropriate body.  Once again, it was considered that local authorities are likely to have a major role to play in order to ensure that any display is mounted and promoted by an appropriate end-user and that its business planning is placed upon an appropriate financial footing from the outset.

6.  Summary of the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Working Group

Any report by the Holme Timber Circle Forum to the Area Museums Committee will need to state that the Forum recommends pursuit of the concept of a display of the timber circle while also exploring the option of returning the timbers to the beach at Holme.  It will also need to recommend to the AMC that the aim of determining a preferred option should be established.  Thereafter the Forum makes the following recommendations:

• The Working Group should undertake a rapid assessment of the viability or otherwise or replacement of the timbers on the beach at Holme (either fully buried or with timbers protruding in a similar manner as found) in consultation with local people, the landowner, stewards of the site and relevant agencies such as English Nature

Should the option of replacement on the beach be considered inappropriate, it is recommended that

• An independent Feasibility Study be commissioned to provide

a)  detailed scoping of display proposals including educational potential
b)  assessment of environmental, spatial planning, tourism and social contexts and constraints of display location
c)  assessment of building requirements for an effective and sustainable display
d)  consideration of the financial viability of any options, in particular the revenue implications
e)  definition of a recommended end-user with proposals for its constitution
f)  definition of appropriate local structures to oversee a capital programme, business planning, academic content and operation

• Local authorities (and other partners if appropriate) through the Area Museums Committee, should initiate and have oversight of the Feasibility Study

• Local authorities should approve and have oversight of the end-user

• The Area Museums Committee should act as facilitator for development of display proposals but responsibility for display development should rest with the designated end-user

• The Area Museums Committee should consider maintaining the Working Group to progress a brief for a Feasibility Study

Appendix 1:  Members of the Holme Timber Circle Forum

Brian Ayers, Archaeology & Environment Officer (Norfolk) - Chairman
John Barrett, Leisure & Tourism Officer (West Norfolk)
Roger Bellinger (Norfolk & Norwich Archaeological Society)
Cllr E. G. Benefer (West Norfolk)
John Birchall (Norfolk County Council)
Bill Boisnier (Norfolk Archaeological Unit)
Bill Boyd (Norfolk Wildlife Trust)
Mark Brennand (Norfolk Archaeological Unit)
Cllr John Dobson (West Norfolk)
Cllr Ingrid Floering-Blackman (Norfolk County Council)
David Gurney, Principal Landscape Archaeologist (Norfolk) - Minutes
David Hasler (Norfolk Society/Council for the Protection of Rural England)
Norma Hasler (Holme Parish Council)
Gary Hibberd (Norfolk Wildlife Trust)
Rober Hoverd (Hunstanton Town Council)
Peter Lambley (English Nature)
Michael Meakin (Landowner)
B Milton (Holme Parish Council)
Geoffrey Needham (Chairman, Holme Parish Council)
Buster Nolan (Druid groups)
Francis Prior & Maisie Taylor (Flag Fen)
John Smallwood (King's Lynn & West Norfolk Archaeological Society)
Kate Sussams, Asst. Keeper of Archaeology (Nflk Museums & Archaeology Service)
Tim Venes (Norfolk Coastal Project)
Philip Walker (English Heritage)

Appendix 2:  Members of the Holme Timber Circle Working Group

Brian Ayers, Archaeology & Environment Officer (Norfolk) - Chairman
John Barrett, Leisure & Tourism Officer (West Norfolk)
Cllr John Dobson (West Norfolk)
David Gurney, Principal Landscape Archaeologist (Norfolk) - Minutes
Michael Meakin(Landowner)
Geoffrey Needham (Chairman, Holme Parish Council)
John Smallwood (King's Lynn & West Norfolk Archaeological Society)
Kate Sussams, Asst Keeper of Archaeology (Nflk Museums & Archaeology Service)
Tim Venes, Norfolk Coastal Project