October 2009Phil WeatherbyCommunities and Local GovernmentPlanning Systems Improvement DivisionEland HouseBressenden PlaceLONDONSW1E 5DUPPSHistoric-Environment@communities.gsi.gov.uk Dear Mr Weatherby

FAME response to Draft PPS Planning for the Historic Environment, and HistoricEnvironment Practice Guide

FAME is the only organisation that provides a forum specific for managers and employers ofarchaeologists in the United Kingdom to discuss matters of concern to the heritage industry, andto offer a representative voice for this key group within the profession. FAME members employthe majority of professional archaeologists currently working in the UK, and as such the opinionof FAME reflects a large part of the profession. Much of FAME’s membership is composed ofarchaeological organizations engaged in commercial practice, acting as the agents ofdevelopers in the execution of their requirements for the planning process. They therefore havea unique insight into the application of legislation and planning guidance as part of the planningprocess, and its effectiveness in protecting our heritage.

Effectiveness of current system

PPG 15 and 16 have provided the bedrock for the protection and investigation of the historicenvironment. Implementation of the principles included within these guidance documents hasvaried from region to region, and has developed in sophistication over time. In general they havebeen of great assistance in raising awareness of heritage issues with both developers and localplanning authorities, and in allowing planning officers to balance heritage needs against otherpriorities when assessing applications and advising on consents. Although objections to PPGs15 and 16 were raised by developers in the early years of their use, it is now accepted by allparties as a routine part of the planning process. In common with other services that a developerwill require in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome, proper survey and assessment of impacton the historic environment by heritage professionals has become a standard element in theplanning process, but unfortunately not within the activities of statutory undertakers, a situationwhich has resulted in an unknown extent of damage to heritage assets.The introduction of Environmental Impact Assessment in 1999 has broadened the understandingof the historic environment to include both tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritage, aswell as aesthetic and perceived values for heritage assets. The draft PPS incorporates much ofthe EIA terminology so that guidance will be updated from the old PPGs in line with current best

practice and will include the concept of “setting” for heritage assets to provide a further elementin their appreciation and protection. It also introduces the term “conservation” rather thanPPG16’s phrase “preservation

in situ”

, and so brings the draft PPS into line with mainstreamconservation terminology.

Draft Planning Policy Statement

FAME welcomes the introduction of a PPS on Planning and the Historic Environment, andbelieves that this will enhance the existing levels of protection to our heritage that are presentlyprovided within the planning system. The new PPS places heritage as an integrated part ofsustainable development, and sets out the importance of historic character to give a sense ofplace and local distinctiveness to communities, and as a factor that should influence design. Italso introduces the need for public benefit and community involvement in managing the historicenvironment. It is especially important in that it stresses the need for information-based decisionmaking, and the assessment of significance (heritage value) as well as the magnitude ofchange, so that the conservation and understanding of our past will be approached in aproportionate manner.FAME welcomes the clarity that PPS brings to the breadth of the historic environment in itsdefinition of heritage assets and of the need for investigation of “areas where there is a potentialfor such assets to be discovered” (HE1.3), although this should be reinforced in HE7.2 whichshould also refer to development sites with the potential to include historic assets. FAME alsowelcomes the explicit need for planning authorities to have publicly documented evidence(HE1.1), an endorsement of Historic Environment Records (HERs). The PPS also identifies theneed for LPAs to “use appropriate expert advice to inform decision-making relating to heritageassets” (HE9.2).

•

FAME would recommend that these aspects are further clarified by a statementemphasizing the need to maintain an appropriate level of expertise in the planningauthorities, in order that the evidence and interpretation of its significance can adequatelyto inform planning decisions. In addition, the independence of that advice from otherpriorities that planning authorities may have, should be stressed. If the advice offered isnot adopted by the planning authority, the reasons why it was over-ruled should be madeavailable for public scrutiny; criteria for this is outlined in HE9.8.

•

FAME is also concerned that, while there is correct reference to the use of those with theappropriate expertise, there remains no requirement on appropriate accreditation ofthose with the necessary skills and expertise. There continues to be no bar to anyindividual or organisation offering their services in historic environment practiceregardless of their level of skill, expertise or quality with the consequent risk ofunnecessary damage to the historic environment.

•

FAME is also concerned that sufficient resources will be made available to fulfil theobligations placed on planning authorities in an era of reduction to public expenditure,non-statutory services, such as much of the historic environment, are particularlyvulnerable to cuts in public serviceFAME welcomes the importance the draft PPS attributes to pre-application discussions andassessment, especially HE7.2 which refers to a requirement for appropriate baseline data(through desk study and site investigation) to support a planning application. The extension ofthe significance of setting to heritage assets (HE8.1, HE9.6, HE11) enhances the holisticapproach to the historic environment and the need for appropriate assessment of its significanceas part of sustainable development. In addition HE10.6 is useful for its help in clarifying that

nationally significant heritage assets can be discovered as part of the information gathering andassessment process, that have not been previously designated as such.

•

FAME would strongly recommend a more explicit reference to the inclusion of the builtheritage into the need for investigation and recording, e.g. in HE7.2 which mentions only“heritage assets with an archaeological interest” and uses the words “field evaluation”which gives a perception of this applying solely to below ground archaeological remains,rather than the more holistic need for an equally robust investigative conservationapproach to the built heritage, whether the historic structure in question is listed or not.This should also be emphasized in “Annex 1. Terminology” which defines“Archaeological interest” followed by “Architectural and artistic interest”; the perceptiongiven is that built heritage falls in the latter rather than in both. Explicit clarification isrecommended. Such a clarification would be in accordance with English Heritage’sguidance:

Understanding Historic Buildings A guide to good recording practice 2006

•

In addition the need for investigative conservation/field evaluation must include anunderstanding of the physical and chemical environment in which heritage assets havesurvived, so that if (as in HE10.1) the asset is to be “conserved” for the future, anunderstanding of why and how it has survived are established. Any development schemethat may lead to an adverse change to this conservation environment (e.g. in waterquality or desiccation

piling activities etc) would need to undertake investigation of thenature of the burial environment so that an informed design can be produced that doesnot adversely affect the long-term conservation of the heritage asset. Monitoring as partof a management plan will also be necessary to ensure that long-term conservation ofthe heritage asset has been successful.

•

FAME notes that some of the terminology is unnecessarily weak, in particular “should”rather than “would”. The clarity of implementation for the PPS would benefit from achange of wording that says planning authorities “would require” as opposed to thecurrent “should” within the draft PPS.

•

In addition, care needs to be taken with other aspects of terminology, to ensure there isno conflict with other guidance. In particular EIA regulations use significance as a keyword for meaning “significance of effect when assessing the magnitude of changeagainst the sensitivity of the receptor”; “heritage value” is a term used to avoid confusionwith the use of significance for a heritage asset. The divergence in terminology andconfusion this can cause is clearly illustrated by English Heritage’s draft guidance“Seeing the History in the View” which uses Informed Conservation terminology in Part 1,and uses EIA Landscape guidance terminology in Part 2, with “significance” flipping itsmeaning between the two parts.

•

In addition, heritage assets has a different definition in the draft PPS than in EnglishHeritage’s Conservation Principles, where this term only encompasses designatedfeatures.

•

Furthermore the use of the word “setting” and the need to assess impact on setting for allheritage assets, could potentially lead to considerable confusion due to vagueness andsubjectivity, unless criteria are designed for universal assessment of setting.

•

FAME is also concerned that the draft PPS does not refer to issues regarding the lack ofrepositories for archives, and enhanced facilities for Museums to manage the resultantrecords and artefacts from the investigations required during the planning process, forthe public benefit. The wording of HE13.3 regarding archives is unacceptably weak andshould be strengthened to require the deposition of the archive with an appropriate