The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice

ISSN: 1756-7505 (Print) 1756-7513 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yhen20

Engaging with Policy in England - Agency,

Interpretation and Implementation

Hana Morel & Michael Dawson

To cite this article: Hana Morel & Michael Dawson (2019) Engaging with Policy in England -
Agency, Interpretation and Implementation, The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10:3-4,
245-254, DOI: 10.1080/17567505.2019.1701771

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2019.1701771

Published online: 25 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 522

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yhen20
THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE
2019, VOL. 10, NOS. 3–4, 245–254
https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2019.1701771

EDITORIAL

Engaging with Policy in England - Agency, Interpretation and

Implementation

Scholars and practitioners alike in the historic environment have long felt the pressures of
changing government agendas, shifts in funding, and changing global priorities. Over the
past two years government reshuffles have seen changes in personnel at the UK Ministry
for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries1 and numerous consultations relat-
ing to the environment.2 The new conservative government elected on 12th December
2019 promises further change. In 2019 alone, the Secretary of State for Housing,
Communities and Local Government Robert Jenrick MP launched a new campaign to
protect local heritage buildings in addition to a recent announcement of a £95 million
fund to unlock the economic potential of 69 historic high streets. Yet at the same time the
Heritage Alliance are continuing discussions with DCMS and the Home office on the
proposed immigration system after potential EU Exit, including salary thresholds for
heritage professionals applying for working visas and organisational preparedness for no-
deal Brexit.3 While Brexit seems to dominate most agendas, a collaborative and transpar-
ent historic environment community continues to support efforts to highlight relevant
work as well as reshape research to understand further the scale of challenges faced by
the sector and how to respond to them.
As part of that effort, the remit of this journal is both international in outlook and
world-wide in scope, with members of the editorial board in both hemispheres with
interests which span the complexities of the historic environment. Amongst the advan-
tages of a global perspective is the level of engagement in contemporary debate, and in
recent years the publication list of papers has included commentary on the principles of
heritage practice and case studies illustrating how the apparatus of heritage conservation
functions in a wide range of situations. Interpretation of policy in any administration is
a key subject area with important implications for the implementation of conservation
policy at local, regional and national levels. In some areas, national engagement and
interpretation may have important implications for international practice.4 In this age of
globalisation the study of a particular administration’s policy is an important aspect of
public and academic interest, part of a discourse contributing to and informing the
development of common definitions, themes, solutions and priorities.
This Special Issue of the journal was inspired by the AHRC Heritage/Rescue conference
‘Engaging with Policy in the UK: Responding to Changes in Planning, Heritage and the Arts’,
held at the University College London, Institute of Archaeology on 27 October 2018. Its
purpose was to promote further the dialogue between those involved with the historic
environment and related fields, to draw on and bring together transdisciplinary and cross-
sectoral perspectives on a range of critical changes in UK policy. Its objective was to provide
a detailed case study of engagement with English policy in relation to the historic and
natural environment and the role of governance.5 The conference addressed challenges and

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

246 EDITORIAL

opportunities resulting from significant changes in the political landscape seen through
increasing numbers of consultations and calls for evidence which have emerged in the past
few years.6 It aimed to engage with academics, civil servants, amenity societies, private and
professional bodies to address three core areas: (1) building culture and protection of the
natural and historic environment into the planning system; (2) planning for people by
addressing the changing role of culture, museums and the arts; and (3) the need for
evidence-based and practical strategies in responding to key issues and concerns.
The Conference is just one approach amongst many providing a forum aimed at the
deployment of our collective resources and research capacity to improve the future of the
historic environment. Invited speakers from a range of sectors, many of whom are
featured in this volume, explored the mechanisms by which researchers and practitioners
can provide relevant information and evidence which is urgently needed by government
to enable progressive and informed decision making.
The Conference’ focus on law, policy and practice in contemporary England reflects an
increasing concern across the heritage, museum, arts and planning sectors that evidence-
based policy is under threat. It is evident within the sector that contemporary practice can
contribute to the emergence of policy by providing a clearer understanding of the scope
and influence of heritage through an improved grasp of what constitutes value and
significance. This can only be achieved by a more comprehensive use of the evidence
base and by means of a theoretical understanding of contemporary practice.
Current practice within the sector can also contribute to greater historical awareness
by engagement with a diversity of groups within society whose perspectives and under-
standing of cultural values may offer a more contested perspective on the role of policy.
Engagement at this level can provide increased understanding between groups in rela-
tion to their own actions and how these might influence or be influenced by others. Such
engagement runs contrary to the criticism that policy makers only have in mind the
concerns of special interest groups. In an evident practical sense engagement by the
sector can demonstrate the effectiveness of policy initiatives and promote practical
reform. There is no doubt, too, that evidence-based publication aids the conservation
sector’s advocacy and agitation for practical reform and in monitoring objectively where
policy is found to be inadequate, opaque or inappropriate. It is some 32 year since Robert
Hewison in ‘The Heritage Industry – Britain in a Climate of Decline’7 argued for the
establishment of a critical culture with respect to heritage and this publication may be
seen as vindicating this important aspiration.

English Law and Policy

The protection offered by English law and the conservation policy instruments which
underpin the framework of practice provide the focus for the papers which follow. They
exemplify the wide range of personal, organisational and institutional agency, and the
capacity of the sector to engage with the development of an evidence base for change
and transformation affecting the historic environment. The political weight carried by
policy is explicit in government statements and over the years, we have seen government
propose a range of changes in policy supported by official consultations.8 This enabling of
democratic governance process is key to ensuring fair participation in policy production.
In recent years consultation has been undertaken on, amongst other things, the 2012 and
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 247

2019 National Planning Policy Framework, the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, the
Raynsford Review on Planning, the Museum Review, the call for evidence on how to
build bridges within and between communities by the Select Committee on Citizenship
and Civic Engagement, the Environment Bill, and recently the Treasure Act. The heritage
sector has also seen, in what could be viewed as a positive gain, the creation of the
‘Heritage Council’, a cross-departmental group in Parliament indicative of Government’s
commitment to ensure greater coordination and a stronger voice for heritage.9 At the
time of its announcement, alongside the launch of the 2017 Heritage Statement, the then
Minister for Arts, Heritage and Tourism John Glen MP, in setting out the government’s
priorities for the coming years wrote:

Our heritage requires careful protection and sympathetic conservation. But we need to focus our
investment to protect, conserve and enhance our heritage where it delivers the greatest benefits
today and in the future. We must ensure that our heritage helps to create great places to live,
work, visit, and do business, as well as contributing to our economy, our wellbeing and the
regeneration of our communities. We must aim to improve access to our heritage and extend
opportunities to enjoy and learn about it to everyone in every community. And we must
maximise the power of our heritage as an asset in our international outlook and use it to
promote our country around the world.10

In the 2018 Heritage Statement – One Year On, the Minister of Arts, Heritage and Tourism,
Michael Ellis noted the success of that statement heralding the institution of a new place-
marker scheme, an increase of £55 million allocated to the heritage sector to regenerate
high streets.11 Yet at the same time hard pressed local authorities were encouraged to
make ‘better use of volunteer resources in areas of fundraising, outreach, events staffing, and
specialist conservation work, to governance roles and trusteeship’.12 Whilst it is not the role
of this journal to engage in overt politicised debate, such policy is contested and has been
challenged in the sector. Simon Aldous writing in the Architect’s Journal on the London
Imperial War Museum exhibition ‘What Remains’ described how a country’s cultural
heritage is often deliberately targeted in conflict as evidenced by the recent destruction
of Palmyra in Syria, the Bamiyan Buddhas of Afghanistan, the violation of the Hague
Convention in Kosovo, or the Baedeker Raids during the Second World War, when German
bombers used travel guides of Britain as a checklist of which buildings to set out to
destroy.13 Yet, Aldous continued, ‘a latter-day foreign aggressor may be saved the effort by
the UK government’s cumulative funding cuts to its heritage protection body, Historic
England. Adopting an interesting turn of phrase, Historic England says it has ‘raised the
bar’ on the type of planning applications for which it will be offering advice. Which in practice
seems to mean it will not be giving assistance to local authorities determining most planning
applications affecting Grade II-listed buildings.”14
Policy affecting heritage and the historic and natural environment directly is a broad
church, and such an exchange draws attention to capacity, one of the key issues in
implementation. Simon Aldous’ focus was the reduction in funding for Historic
England, seen against a 27% cut in Historic England and English Heritage spending
since 2014, and a 35% reduction in Local Authority Historic Environment staff since
2006.15 Local authorities in England lost 27% of their spending power over five years
from 2010 to 2015.16 Some services, such as planning and ‘supporting people’ have
seen cumulative cuts of 45%.17 The Local Government Association highlighted almost
half of all councils – 168 – will not receive any core central government funding by
248 EDITORIAL

2020, and that local councils will see central funding fall by 77% by that time.18 Add to
this a cut in overall historic environment advice of 32% since 2006, of which 26% is in
archaeological advice (including Historic Environment Records Officers) and 35% in
conservation advice.19
In recent times emphasis by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA), the
sponsoring body of this journal, has been placed on the capacity of the profession to
respond to ambitious policies such as that outlined by Ellis in 2017 in the context of Brexit.
The current policy for the UK to leave the EU, with or without a deal, has led to a demand
by CIfA, among other heritage organisations, that the ‘government must put in place new
systems that enable the right level of immigration to meet the UK’s archaeological needs. It
should also ensure that UK professionals can work in the EU. Provisions should ensure that UK
universities maintain research and teaching excellence and attract top students.’20 Such
a plea is made not only as there is currently a high demand for archaeological services due
to infrastructure and house building but in light of the current make-up of the archae-
ological workforce. Presently some 13% of archaeologists working in the UK come from
EEA and the Institute has made common cause with the construction sector in voicing
concern over the potential impact that post-Brexit migration restrictions might have on
the capacity of the profession to respond in the context of housing policy.21
Such engagement with policy notionally outside the narrower remit of historic envir-
onment conservation, is consistent with the need for a wider engagement with policy
generally. Many heritage organisations, such as CIfA, The Heritage Alliance, the Council of
British Archaeology, and RESCUE, aim to develop networks through which to influence
policy when opportunities or threats arise in relation the historic environment providing
authoritative advice to ministers, parliamentarians, civil servants and agencies or NGOs.
They seek to influence policy not only in areas of heritage practice, but in related fields of
employment, licencing and regulation. Specific initiatives related to England include the
successful implementation of the 2017 Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act and the
implementation of the Hague Convention, ratification of the UNESCO Convention on
Underwater Heritage in collaboration with the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy
Committee (JNAPC) and the maritime Archaeology Group. Whilst the country is still
a member of the EU CIfA, for example, continues to work towards the creation of an EU
Directive on the historic environment.22
While many heritage organisations work towards improving the standards of conser-
vation and enhancement of the environment as well as standards of employment for
practitioners, the limited capacity of organisations acts to deter them from more extensive
engagement. Recognition of this limitation has led to the re-emergence of The
Archaeology Forum (TAF), with members from lead national (or wider) bodies supporting
the archaeological discipline with an interest in policy, in which their strategic actions aim
to shape the future of the discipline by enabling information sharing on advocacy,
campaigns, research and wider activities with the potential of alignment of initiatives
and unified messages.23
Engaging with Policy, the inspiration for this edition of the journal, is one of many
attempts to promote knowledge exchange among a range of representative heritage
organisations. The objective, through the agency of individual and group action is to
improve the implementation of policy, inform the evidence base of policy formulation,
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 249

review its interpretation and to look ahead towards the sort of research which is needed
to address the long-term future of our sector.

Agency
The first paper of the volume is Clark’s important paper ‘Power of Place – heritage policy at
the start of the new millennium’ which sets the tone by introducing the ‘wide-ranging
engagement process involving the private sector, natural and cultural heritage organisations
and others’. The extent of consultation is a valuable counterpoint to the exponents of the
AHD. The paper is both empowering and a valuable contribution to understanding the
strength of personal agency. It provides detail and context to many of the discussions that
follow in this volume. Power of Place-the future of the historic environment, although no
longer available online unless specifically requested, envisioned many of the challenges
faced by contemporary heritage. From concerns of wealth distribution and the impact of
climate change, it looked to a new vision for heritage.
Chitty and Smith’s paper ‘Principles into Policy: assessing the impact of Conservation
Principles in local planning policy’ provides a key insight examining and reflecting on the
unquestionable influence and impact of the 2008 English Heritage Conservation Principles
in local policy formation. This is despite the document never having formal public policy
status in England’s planning system. The paper draws on the role of agency through
understanding the context of policy transfer and influence across networks, it demon-
strates how principles and documents can have a lasting impact on practice regardless of
support (or not) from Government.

Interpretation
The broader interpretation of heritage policy and practice, from the definition of terms to
explaining principles, is riddled with inconsistencies in practice. Key to greater clarity is
how policy is interpreted and applied in law.
Nigel Hewitson provides a clear and straightforward examination of the compatibility
between legislation and policy highlighting ‘The Disconnect Between Heritage Law and
Policy: How did we get here and where are we going?’ Exploring how we came to categorise
and protect different classes of heritage assets Hewitson specifically focuses on substantial
or less than substantial harm in relation to designated and non-designated heritage assets.
Decision Making in the Real World, co-authored by barristers Peter Goatley and Nina
Pindham, considers the interpretation of heritage legislation and policy at inquiry and by
UK courts. Drawing on specific cases they emphasise the precision of language. Of
particular interest to those of us who deal with setting is their conclusion that, despite
Barnwell, it may not be necessary for an authority to state that they have given ‘special
regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting’ where this is explicit in
the text of a report or assessment.
These two ‘legal’ papers provide insight into the dynamic between formal policy, its
interpretation in law and its subsequent use in policy decisions. Roger Thomas’ paper ‘It’s
Not Mitigation! Policy and Practice in Development-Led Archaeology in England’ provides
a much needed examination of terminology in custom and practice. Many of us are
familiar with terms such as rescue archaeology’, ‘developer-funded archaeology’,
250 EDITORIAL

‘preservation by record’, ‘preventive archaeology’ and ‘mitigation’. However, Roger ques-

tions the application of what have become ‘archaeological traditions’ and whether these
correctly reflect the application of policy. The paper is a clear analysis of the interpretation
of policy and how this has been applied in practice.
The final paper in this section is a warning to the sector from Rescue, one of our more
important amenity societies. Dan Phillips, on behalf of Rescue, explores the concept and
role of viability, now prominent in the UK planning process. This is an important devel-
opment about which the historic environment sector should be fully conversant. Philips
highlights how viability can influence the conservation and enhancement of the historic
environment, and provides an essential explanation of viability, its role and assessment in
the planning process. He shows how the financial costs of developments are calculated
and, in certain circumstances, how viability expressed in financial terms can upstage
conditions related to the historic environment.24

Implementation
The third section concludes with five papers discussing the application and implementa-
tion of policy. At the heart of this section is the extent to which policy depends on the
social, political and economic landscape of the time. The capacity to implement policy is
clearly based on the availability of resources, whether financial, expert or a supportive
environment.
Boyle in her paper ‘Always on the receiving end? Reflections on archaeology, museums
and policy’ provides a clear example of the unintended consequences of a lack of
consultation, illustrating how one of the most celebrated policy statements for the sector,
PPG 16, resulted in significant problems for archaeology museums. PPG 16, noteworthy
for establishing the historic environment as a material consideration within the UK
planning system has for over 20 years heaped pressure on archaeology museums to
deal with the fallout resulting from the omission of any requirement to ‘preserve the
archaeological record as a result of development-led archaeology’. The pressures on
storage space is now critical, with ongoing conflict as to who should pick up the bill for
archiving and storage.
The issue of capacity is further explored in Patrick’s paper, ‘ . . . the view from a planning
department’ in which he lays out the reality of funding cuts to local government across the
country based on his experience in the West Midlands as a senior conservation officer.
This candid paper raises concern by detailing the role of advice provided by specialist
archaeologists to planning officers, and the consequences of funding cuts on those
arrangements over the last ten years. More urgently, Patrick questions ‘the mantra of
doing “more with less”’ and reveals how the national picture actually obscures’ the impact
of cuts across England’s less well-resourced regions. The knowledge and insight lost as
a result of policy, Patrick adds, has yet to be replaced.
Holmes-Skelton in her paper ‘For everyone? Finding a clearer role for heritage in public
policy-making’ delves into the relationship between spending and the long-term environ-
mental impacts of policy decisions through Capital Valuation. Triggered by the challenge
of finding a new role for heritage and facing the complexities of contested heritage, she
argues, using an approach to assess the economic value of cultural resources recently put
forward by the Natural Capital Valuation committee may well demonstrate that ‘public
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 251

money spent on protecting and enhancing the environment is not merely money spent
without return’. Such protection can generate significant returns on investment.
Belcher, Short and Tewdwr-Jones continue the exploration of implementation. ‘The
heritage-creation process . . . is an excellent example of evidence-based analysis (via semi-
structured interviews) of practice, based on the case of the former Birmingham City
Library. The article is an important reflection on ‘the values that we ascribe to particular
structures and landscapes’ and how these values underpin ‘conflicts inherent within the
conservation’ of heritage. Their call for a more holistic, interdisciplinary understanding of
heritage issues using post-war buildings and their survival as an example, should be
welcome to all.
Morel and Bankes Price address the divide between the historic and natural environ-
ment in ‘Pathways to engagement: the natural and historic environment in England’.
Exploring the complex relationship – and forced separation- of nature and culture in
international and national documents, they explore the recent revision of the National
Planning Policy Framework and the Woodland Trust’s Campaign in support of the
Environment Bill through Parliament. Both the natural and historic environment sectors
have been strongly active in advocating the conservation and enhancement of the two
environments, but have rarely worked together in their campaigns. The co-authorship is
in itself an effort to bridge both the divide and to join with academia and NGOs, in finding
common ground.
Lastly Matt Thompson’s review, ‘Who Owns England? How We Lost Our Green & Pleasant
Land & How To Take It Back’ by Guy Shrubsole reminds us that much of Britain’s heritage
assets are privately owned, and credits Shrubsole’s activism in seeking to explore the
angles (and secrecy) of land ownership. While referencing style may be an issue,
Thompson continues, the book itself is of importance to those involved with the historic
environment. Shrubsole, whose role as environmental campaigner for Friends of the Earth
and research calling into question the myths around land ownership, align well with this
volume’s aim to be mindful of how seemingly disconnected law and policy impact the
historic environment.
Overall, this Special Issue is part of the initiative to reflect on issues of importance to the
historic environment across the planning, arts and museum sectors. Its objective has been
to overcome limitations due to resources, capacity or experience and to celebrate cross-
sectoral and interdisciplinary approaches and to recognise the value of agency, inter-
pretation and implementation in policy and practice.

Notes
1. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Arts, Tourism and Heritage was John Glen
(June 2017 – Jan 2018), then Michael Ellis (Jan 2018 – May 2019), Rebecca Pow (May – Sept
2019) and Helen Whately MP from 10 September 2019.
2. This includes, for example, the Ministry of Housing, Communities, Local Government con-
sultation Delivering the 25 Year Environment Plan for the historic and natural environments; and
consultations in relation to The Environment Bill; Planning reform: supporting the high street
and increasing the delivery of new homes; Scrutiny of the draft Environment (Principles and
Governance) Bill Inquiry; Improving our Management of Water in the Environment; Conservation
Covenants, and the Revising the definition of treasure in the Treasure Act.
252 EDITORIAL

3. https://www.theheritagealliance.org.uk/update/no-deal-brexit-how-will-it-affect-the-
heritage-sector/ accessed 11/11/19.
4. Dolowitz and Medearis, “Considerations of the Obstacles and Opportunities,” 684–97.
5. Engaging with Policy in the UK: Responding to Changes in Planning, Heritage and the Arts, UCL
Conference 28 September 2018.
6. See Endnote 2 for 2019 consultations, earlier consultations include: the Treasury Committee
VAT inquiry; the revised National Planning Policy Framework; the Environment Bill, the Fisheries
Bill; the Planning Appeal Inquires Review call for evidence questionnaire, and the Landscapes
Review Call for Evidence. .
7. Hewison, The Heritage Industry, 10.
8. Civilservice.blog.gov.uk 2016 ‘Consultations – What’s New and Why They Are so Important –
Civil Service’.
9. ‘Heritage Council’, https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/heritage-council.
10. Heritage Statement 2017, DCMS .
11. Sutherland, Potton, 18 December 2018; ‘£40 Million Government Funding To Improve
Historic High Streets’, 2018 Historic England.
12. Heritage Statement – A Year On 2018, DCMS, 11.
13. Aldous, July 2019; for Palmyra see UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “Director-General of
UNESCO Irina Bokova Firmly Condemns the Destruction of Palmyra’s Ancient Temple of
Baalshamin, Syria,” UNESCO World Heritage Centre, for the Bamiyan Buddhas, see “Ten
Years on – Remembering the Tragic Destruction of the Giant Buddha Statues of Bamiyan
(Afghanistan),” UNESCO World Heritage Centre; for Kosovo, see Herscher and Riedlmayer,
“Monument and Crime,” 109–22.
14. Architects Journal 6 July 2019.
15. English Heritage, ALGAO, and IHBC, “A Sixth Report on Local Authority Staff Resources,
Historic England.”
16. National Audit Office, “Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities,” 14.
17. Historic England, “Heritage Counts 2016: Heritage and Place Branding,” 6; JRF, 10 March 2015,
3.
18. “Council Funding to Be Further Cut in Half over next Two Years – LGA Warns,” 2019 www.
local.gov.uk.
19. Historic England, 2014.
20. CIfA Position Statement Briefing – Archaeology and Immigration May 2019.
21. Migration in the UK Construction and Built Environment Sector, IFF repprt for CITB 2018.
22. From CIfA Advocacy Objectives 2018/19.
23. Personal notes from TAF meeting, May 2019; EP: Town & Country Planning Services, “Cutting
the Red Tape of Planning?” Ethical Partnership (blog), 20 April 2012.
24. EP: Town & Country Planning Services, “Cutting the Red Tape of Planning?” Ethical Partnership
(blog), 20 April 2012.

Acknowledgments
Special thanks to the AHRC Heritage Priority Area and Rescue: The British Archaeology Trust for
funding Engaging with Policy in the UK: Responding to Changes in Planning, Heritage and the Arts.
Special thanks also to the Editorial board of The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice for
encouraging this Special Issue.

Bibliography
Aldous, S. 2019. “Heritage Fails to Make the Grade.” Architects Journal, July 6. Accessed July 27, 2019.
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/opinion/weekend-roundup-built-heritage-fails-to-make-the
-grade/10043479.article
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 253

Bulmer, S., D. Dolowitz, P. Humphreys, and S. Padgett. 2007. Policy Transfer in European Union
Governance : Regulating the Utilities. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203964743.
CIfA. Advocacy Objectives 2018/19. Accessed July 27, 2019. https://www.archaeologists.net/advocacy
CIFA. 2019. “Position Statement Briefing - Archaeology and Immigration.” May. Accessed July 27,
2019. https://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/CIfA%20policy%20position%20on%
20archaeology%20and%20immigration%20post-Brexit.pdf
“Consultations - What’s New and Why They are so Important - Civil Service.” Accessed August 14,
2019. https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2016/01/15/consultations-whats-new-and-why-they-are-so
-important/
Dept for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport. 2019. “Revising the Definition of Treasure in the Treasure
Act 1996 and Revising the Related Codes of Practice.” Accessed December 2019 https://www.gov.
uk/government/consultations/revising-the-definition-of-treasure-in-the-treasure-act-1996-and-
revising-the-related-codes-of-practice
Dept for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport. Heritage Statement 2017. London:DCMS.
Dept for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. 2018. “Delivering the 25 Year Environment Plan for the
Historic and Natural Environments.” London:Dept for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.
Dept for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. 2018. “Consultation Outcome Sustainable Fisheries for
Future Generations: Consultation Document.” Accessed December 1, 2019. https://www.gov.uk/
government/consultations/fisheries-white-paper-sustainable-fisheries-for-future-generations
/sustainable-fisheries-for-future-generations-consultation-document
Dept for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. 2018. “Landscapes Review Team Panel Landscapes
Review: Call for Evidence.” October. Accessed December 1, 2019. https://consult.defra.gov.uk/
land-use/landscapes-review-call-for-evidence/supporting_documents/landscapesrevieweviden
cedocument.pdf
Dept for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. 2019. “Improving Our Management of Water in the
Environment Summary of Responses and Government Response.” July. Accessed December 1,
2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach
ment_data/file/819372/floods-water-consult-sum-resp.pdf
Dept for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. 2019. “Conservation Covenants. Consultation Outcome
Summary of Responses and Government Response.” Updated July 23. Accessed December 1,
2019. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/conservation-covenants/outcome/sum
mary-of-responses-and-government-response
Dept for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. “The Environment Bill Policy Paper, Documents Related
to the 2019 Environment Bill.” London:Dept for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.
Dolowitz, D. P., and D. Medearis. “Considerations of the Obstacles and Opportunities to Formalizing
Cross-National Policy Transfer to the United States: A Case Study of the Transfer of Urban
Environmental and Planning Policies from Germany.” Environment and Planning C: Government
and Policy 27, no. 4 August 1 (2009): 684–697. doi:10.1068/c0865j.
EP: Town & Country Planning Services. 2012. “‘cutting the Red Tape of Planning?’, 2012 Ethical
Partnership (Blog).” April 20. Accessed March 1, 2019. http://www.ethicalpartnership.co.uk/2012/
04/20/cutting-the-red-tape-of-planning/
Hastings, A., N. Bailey, G. Bramley, M. Gannon, and D. Watkins. 2015. “The Cost of the Cuts: The
Impact on Local Government and Poorer Communities.” Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Report,
March 10. https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/cost-cuts-impact-local-government-and-poorer-
communities
Herscher, A., and A. Riedlmayer. “Monument and Crime: The Destruction of Historic Architecture in
Kosovo.” Grey Room, no. 1 (2000): 109–122.
Hewison, R. The Heritage Industry - Britain in a Climate of Decline. Methuen: London, 1987.
Historic England. October 30, 2018. Accessed December 1, 2019. https://historicengland.org.uk/
whats-new/news/40-million-pounds-govt-funding-historic-high-streets/
Historic England. Heritage at Risk. London: Historic England, 2018.
Historic England. “Heritage Counts 2016: Heritage and Place Branding.” Accessed August 14, 2019.
http://historicengland.org.uk/research/heritage-counts/2016-heritage-and-place-branding/
254 EDITORIAL

Historic England, ALGAO, IHBC. 2019. “A Sixth Report on Local Authority Staff Resources.” Accessed
August 14, 2019. http://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/sixth-report-la-staff-
resources/
IFF Research. 2018. “Migration in the UK: The View from Employers, Recruiters and non-UK Workers
in 2018.” Full Report. London: ConstructionIndustry Training Board. Accessed July 27, 2019.
https://www.citb.co.uk/about-citb/construction-industry-research-reports/search-our-
construction-industry-research-reports/mobility-and-migration/migration-uk-construction-built-
environment/
Local Government Association. 2017. “Council Funding to Be Further Cut in Half over Next Two
Years - LGA Warns.” Accessed August 14, 2019. https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/council-
funding-be-further-cut-half-over-next-two-years-lga-warns.
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. 2018. “Consultation Outcome Draft Revised
National Planning Policy Framework.” London: Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local
Government. Accessed December 1, 2019. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-
revised-national-planning-policy-framework
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government and HM Treasury. 2019. “Government
Response to Consultation on Planning Reform: Supporting the High Street and Increasing the
Delivery of New Homes. A Summary of Responses to the Consultation and the Government’s
Response.” London: Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 2018. “Independent Review of Planning
Appeal Inquiries.” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/777823/Independent_Review_of_Planning_Appeal_Inquiries_
Main_Report.pdf
National Audit Office. 2018. “Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities.” London: NAO. Accessed
August 14, 2019. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Financial-sustainabilty-
of-local-authorites-2018.pdf
“Scrutiny of the Draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill Inquiry.” 2019. Accessed March
1, 2019. https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select
/environment-food-and-rural-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/scrutiny-of-the-draft-
environment-bill-17-19/
Sutherland, N., and E. Potton. 2018. “House of Commons Library: Town Centre Heritage Action
Zones.” Town Centre Heritage Action Zones, December 18. https://researchbriefings.parliament.
uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0279
“Treasury Committee VAT Inquiry.” 2017. Treasury Committee. https://www.parliament.uk/business/
committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/inquiries1/parliament-2017/
vat-17-19/
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. “Director-General of UNESCO Irina Bokova Firmly Condemns the
Destruction of Palmyra’s Ancient Temple of Baalshamin, Syria.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Accessed August 14, 2019. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1339/
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. “Ten Years on – Remembering the Tragic Destruction of the Giant
Buddha Statues of Bamiyan (Afghanistan).” UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Accessed August 14,
2019. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/718/

Hana Morel
Research Associate, AHRC Heritage Priority Area and organiser of the conference ’Engaging
with Policy in the UK: Responding to Changes in Planning, Heritage and the Arts’
Michael Dawson
Director RPS Heritage
Michael.Dawson@RPSgroup.com