RESCUE

The British Archaeological Trust

15a Bull Plain, Hertford,Hertfordshire SG14 1DX

Telephone: 01992-553377

rescue@rescue-archaeology.freeserve.co.ukhttp://www.rescue-archaeology.org.uk

PPS Planning for the Historic EnvironmentComments by RESCUE: the British Archaeological TrustIntroduction

RESCUE is an entirely independent charity, which exists to promote and highlight theinterests of archaeology and the historic environment within the United Kingdom. We have no linkswith any political party and are funded entirely by the subscriptions and donations of our members.It is with this remit in mind that we welcome the opportunity to respond to the consultation on thedraft PPS15: Planning for the Historic Environment.This response is arranged in three sections. As a series of specific questions have beenposed, we have addressed these first, in order that the responses can easily be incorporated intothe CLG consultation format. However, we are strongly of the opinion that there are additionalconcerns arising from this document that are not adequately addressed by the consultationquestions. Therefore, two following sections are included here –to discuss issues arising fromspecific wording of the policies of the PPS (and arranged in the order of the paragraphs as theyappear in the document), and a following section outlining some broader general themes of concern. We hope that this is acceptable, and that the issues we raise which are outside the scopeof the consultation questions will be of use and interest.

Proposed PPS15: - Planning for the Historic EnvironmentConsultation Questions Responses:

Does the PPS strike the right balance between advocating the conservation of what isimportant and enabling change?

No. The balance between these two agendas is a difficult one to achieve. We do not believethat it has been accomplished wholly satisfactorily within the PPS – although there are some areasof the policies where this is achieved more successfully than others. The concept of significance –upon which many of the decisions regarding change are to based is not fully explored or adequatelydefined, and would be better discussed in terms of character and importance, in addition tosignificance. In a similar vein, we would query whether ideas of “artistic” significance have a usefulplace within a document focussed on the historic environment and would need to see this ideaexpressed better in order for it to be acceptable. Whilst we recognise that change is inevitable andwelcome in many situations, it is also the case that a strong presumption for preservation of existingfeatures is the key towards sustainability. Careful consideration needs to be given before loss of heritage assets should be accepted and the PPS is weak in allowing some issues (such as climatechange) to overpower preservation concerns. It should be emphasised that the historic environmentcan be a key aspect of regeneration, rather than the apparent barrier towards change that the PPSseems to consider it to be. The PPS is also rather confused in relation to considerations relating toarchaeological sites, whereby the conservationist concerns which might relate to standing buildingswill not be as relevant or helpful when considering wider agendas of archaeological research andinvestigation – much of which is necessarily destructive. When discussing issues of definingsignificance, or areas such as local planning policy, the PPS should be giving specific guidance toavoid conflict, not simply between disciplines such as archaeology and conservation, but also

Help save the past for the future

between planners, conservation officers, consultants and developers. Unfortunately, such guidanceis not clearly expressed.

By adopting a single spectrum approach to historic assets, does the PPS take proper account of any differences between types of asset (e.g. are archaeological assetsadequately covered)?

No. The PPS is attempting to marry two conflicting agendas: that of the conservation andchange management of historic buildings (currently the focus of PPG15) and that of mitigatingdamage to archaeological sites and finds by development work through study and recording(addressed in PPG16). In addition, it is attempting to include within a new wider definition of the“heritage assets” it refers to, features such as designed parkland, historic landscapes andbattlefields, and accord such features equal weight. It is unsuccessful in adequately addressing anumber of the concerns that arise however. For example, buried archaeological material cannotaccurately be “predicted” simply by consulting the HER – which is only an index of known material.A much wider evidence base is required – and even then, the inherent idiosyncratic nature of pasthuman settlement makes prediction a haphazard science at best. The PPS fails to take this intoaccount by failing to include provision for reasonable prospection policies – ones designed toinvestigate sites to determine their potential archaeological significance. The PPS also fails toappreciate the nature of assessing the significance of certain types of historic site – for example abattlefield which physically may exist only as an apparently empty field, but in historic terms maysurvive as a large corpus of documentary evidence. Landscapes (both designed and otherwise)suffer from similar problems within this document – they simply do not appear, and nor do theyappear to be adequately catered for with the “heritage assets” definition as it is applied throughoutthe PPS.The PPS is also attempting to combine differing regimes of protection. Listed buildingscurrently enjoy statutory protection, as do Scheduled Monuments. However, all here appear to belumped together with currently unprotected archaeological sites and landscape features. Thiscauses confusion in the document within the sections regarding change management and theappropriateness of loss or alteration of assets, where it is not clearly stated that certain types of siteor structure cannot be subject to alteration or loss due to much stronger alternative protectionmeasures that may apply to them. It appears that the missing Heritage Protection Reform Bill mayhave been of relevance here, but with that Bill no longer being considered, it leaves the protectionsystem outlined in the PPS lacking an adequate supporting framework. Paragraphs 1.8 and 1.9 arerelevant within this discussion – describing as they do the context of the PPS (“one element of theGovernment’s ongoing programme of heritage protection reform”) and the single spectrum approach(“moving beyond the outdated distinction between buildings and archaeology”). Both statements areconceptually and practically flawed however, as there currently is no

other

element to theGovernment’s programme of heritage protection reform - this has been omitted from anyprogramme of legislation for the past two parliamentary sessions. Furthermore, with a stated aim of simplifying the process at the heart of this reform, where is the empirical evidence for such widelyunderstood and self-explanatory terminology such as listed buildings or archaeology being“outdated”? Such an approach simply acts to pointlessly homogenise heritage features which inreality are best dealt with on a separate basis, whereby (for example) the specific needs of a sitesuch as a Palaeolithic flint scatter or Iron Age Hill Fort can be addressed appropriately – rather thanunder the terms of a bland statement that is also expected to cover the differing requirements of astreet of Victorian lamp posts or a medieval wall-painting.

In doing so, does the PPS take appropriate account of the implications of the EuropeanLandscape Convention, and of the cultural dimensions of landscapes designated asNational Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty?

No. Article 6 (A) of the ELC states that “Each party undertakes to increase awareness

Help save the past for the future

among civil society, private organisations and public authorities of the value of landscapes, their roleand changes to them”. This is most certainly not achieved with landscapes being included within thecareless conglomeration of “heritage assets” as defined by the PPS, and whereby they barelywarrant a mention. Similarly, the requirement of Article 5 (b) regarding the implementation of landscape policies is poorly served by this approach. In addition, the important consideration thatshould be given to the specific requirements of the landscapes of battlefields is entirely missing.On a related issue, the introduction to the draft PPS (Paragraph 1) states that the policiesshould be read in conjunction with other relevant statements of national planning policy, with thefootnote indicating that they are consistent with various European Union Conventions and the 1972UNESCO World Heritage Convention. However, the draft PPS does not attempt to address any of the issues or directions of Article 3 of the “Valetta” Convention (European Convention on theProtection of the Archaeological Heritage, 1992). It is arguable that by adopting the unified approachtowards “heritage assets”, the PPS does not fully or adequately comply with the majority of theprovisions of Article 5 of Valetta either. Furthermore, the mandatory requirement to report chancediscoveries of the archaeological heritage outlined in Article 2.iii of the Valetta Convention, isnoticeably missing from the PPS – and not fully addressed in the accompanying

Practice Guide

,where paragraph 66 simply states that “English Heritage would wish to be informed if thediscoveries are likely to warrant designation” The obligatory requirement to report the discoveries inthe first place is therefore absent from this and needs to be inserted if the UK is to comply with theprovisions of this convention.

Are the policies and principles set out in the PPS the key ones that underpin planningpolicy on the historic environment, or should others be included?

The policies that are included are generally appropriate. We are pleased in particular to seethe commitments to the preservation of heritage features, the new attention to the setting of heritagefeatures, and the references to publication and archiving of the results of archaeologicalinvestigations. PPG16 contains a statement outlining that archaeological remains are a “finite andnon-renewable resource” which has become a fundamental part of the process of dealing witharchaeology within the planning process. It is disappointing that this well-accepted principle is notretained within the text of the PPS however, and given that it is a well-established principle, wewould urge its return within any new policy statement.With reference to earlier comments (above), it is clear that policies to address the obviousprobability that our existing archaeological evidence-base is incomplete must be included. Somelocal authorities have their own policies which require that all developments involving grounddisturbance over a certain area in size (perhaps 0.4 – 0.5 hectares) should be subject to some formof archaeological assessment prior to development – to take account of the possibility thatpreviously undiscovered buried archaeological remains might exist there, and be under threat fromcomprehensive development proposals. Within the context of the planning process this approach isnot unreasonable, as it minimises the chances of encountering material once development hascommenced. It also ensures that should any remains be encountered, they can be suitablyassessed and accommodated in line with the rest of the Government’s historic environment andplanning policies, and within appropriate and reasonable timescales. Such an enlightened policyframework should be included within the PPS to ensure wider national implementation.We strongly welcome the explicit statement given in HE13.1 that outlines the principle thatthe ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether consent for development that might result in its destruction should be given. Such arguments are often madewithin the current PPG16-led process, and it is important to unequivocally refute this damagingassertion. Fundamentally, missing from the draft PPS policies however is an adequately-wordedreaffirmation of the “polluter pays” principle that forms the heart of the developer-fundedarchaeological recording process outlined currently in PPG’s 15 and 16. It is stated on p.62 that