Difference between revisions of "Manpower plan for the IGS produced by Sir Kingsley Dunham in December 1968, with accompanying memo"

From Earthwise
Jump to: navigation, search
[checked revision][checked revision]
(Created page with "IN CONFIDENCE {{HackettHistory}} == I. G. S. Forward Development: Staff and Buildings — Letter to Beverton == INSTITUTE OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES (Incorporating Geological S...")
 
(I. G. S. — Notes on the Development Proposals)
Line 51: Line 51:
 
# Figures in half brackets count both for present and future.
 
# Figures in half brackets count both for present and future.
  
[[Catergory:History of the British Geological Survey]]
+
[[Category:History of the British Geological Survey]]

Revision as of 18:49, 24 September 2019

IN CONFIDENCE

From: Hackett, Dennis. 1999. Our corporate history. Key events affecting the British Geological Survey, 1967–1998. British Geological Survey. Technical Report, WQ/99/1.

I. G. S. Forward Development: Staff and Buildings — Letter to Beverton

INSTITUTE OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES

(Incorporating Geological Survey of Great Britain Museum of Practical Geology and Overseas Geological Surveys

EXHIBITION ROAD, SOUTH KENSINGTON LONDON S.W.7

TELEPHONE 01-589 9441 EXTN 243

14th. December 1968

Dear Beverton,

I. G. S. Forward Development: Staff and Buildings

With this letter I am forwarding a tabular summary of my preliminary proposals for the disposition of staff in relation to the new buildings at Edinburgh and Nottingham.

The figures in brackets show the current distribution of staff, and these are totalled according to activity and according to office. The total, 655, is 15 below this year's agreed complement but all the remaining poste have been filled or are on offer, the officers not having joined yet.

The last column on the right shows the distribution of staff according to activity, contemplated in the forward look for the present quinquennium.

The figures otherwise not in brackets are our estimates for the purpose of the new buildings, allowing a modest expansion beyond the end of the quinquennium during which Edinburgh and Nottingham I should be: occupied.

While I propose that Nottingham Phase II should be planned now, I strongly recommend that its erection should be deferred until the quinquennium commencing 1974. In my opinion it is very desirable to preserve this amount of flexibility in a large building programme. It could well be that our rate of development will not in fast be permitted to be as great as the forward look to 1957/4 contemplates, in which case this second phase might be unnecessary. Alternatively we may still be underestimating the needs ( though I doubt this ) in which case Phase II could be replanned on a larger scale. A building for e 9 1 at Nottingham is, in my view, quite large enough for the first stage there.

I also attach notes on various specific points in the table; these refer to the small letters in the table.

Tne proposals will shortly be debated by my colleagues in the Direct orate here, and I would be very pleased to have your observations.

Yours sincerely,

Director

The Secretary,

Natural Environment Research Council Alhambra House, WC2

I. G. S. — Notes on the Development Proposals

  1. The draft schedule for Nottingham I contains apace for a room to be used by airector or Deputy airector when at Nottingham and 1 extra on the staff list is counted as compared with this Table.
  2. The Geological Surveys Subcommittee on 29.5.68 requested that 30 ancillary staff be added to the Forward Look proposals to 1973/74; these are included in this figure, which covers S.O. and Exp.O. classes, boring crew and estates officer.
  3. The revised figure for Continental Shelf would cover the position which will arise if the development of the sea-bottom drill is successful, and if major offshore borings are undertaken under I. G. S. control.
  4. Accommodation is not provided at Princes Gate for 55 or 41 officers of the Overseas Division, many of whom are abroad at any given time. The total figure for Princes Gate is thus greater by 20 than the reasonable capacity of the building.
  5. The higher estimate for Palaeontology reflects the demand which would be made by a larger boring programme including many holes on the continental shelf. A more considerable development in micropalaeontology (at Leeds and then Nottingham I ) now appears necessary.
  6. It is possible that a group working on the 'Humber' project, including trainees for overseas hydrogeology, might move to Leeds in advance of the move to Nottingham.
  7. It will be noted that proportionately large developments in fundamental geophysical work are contemplated in seismology and geomagnetism.
  8. The future of the International Seismulogical Centre is not yet certain, but the staff are not paid for by N.E.R.C. and are not includea in I.G.S. complements. However, if the centre is to survive, it is proposed to include space for it in the new Edinburgh building, to be let at an economic rent.
  9. Figures in half brackets count both for present and future.