Fame Response To Pps15

24th October 2009 Phil Weatherby Communities and Local Government Planning Systems Improvement Division Eland House Bressenden Place LONDON SW1E 5DU [email protected]

Dear Mr Weatherby FAME response to Draft PPS Planning for the Historic Environment, and Historic Environment Practice Guide FAME is the only organisation that provides a forum specific for managers and employers of archaeologists in the United Kingdom to discuss matters of concern to the heritage industry, and to offer a representative voice for this key group within the profession. FAME members employ the majority of professional archaeologists currently working in the UK, and as such the opinion of FAME reflects a large part of the profession. Much of FAME’s membership is composed of archaeological organizations engaged in commercial practice, acting as the agents of developers in the execution of their requirements for the planning process. They therefore have a unique insight into the application of legislation and planning guidance as part of the planning process, 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 historic environment. Implementation of the principles included within these guidance documents has varied from region to region, and has developed in sophistication over time. In general they have been of great assistance in raising awareness of heritage issues with both developers and local planning authorities, and in allowing planning officers to balance heritage needs against other priorities when assessing applications and advising on consents. Although objections to PPGs 15 and 16 were raised by developers in the early years of their use, it is now accepted by all parties as a routine part of the planning process. In common with other services that a developer will require in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome, proper survey and assessment of impact on the historic environment by heritage professionals has become a standard element in the planning process, but unfortunately not within the activities of statutory undertakers, a situation which has resulted in an unknown extent of damage to heritage assets. The introduction of Environmental Impact Assessment in 1999 has broadened the understanding of the historic environment to include both tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritage, as well as aesthetic and perceived values for heritage assets. The draft PPS incorporates much of the 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 element in their appreciation and protection. It also introduces the term “conservation” rather than PPG16’s phrase “preservation in situ”, and so brings the draft PPS into line with mainstream conservation terminology. Draft Planning Policy Statement FAME welcomes the introduction of a PPS on Planning and the Historic Environment, and believes that this will enhance the existing levels of protection to our heritage that are presently provided within the planning system. The new PPS places heritage as an integrated part of sustainable development, and sets out the importance of historic character to give a sense of place and local distinctiveness to communities, and as a factor that should influence design. It also introduces the need for public benefit and community involvement in managing the historic environment. It is especially important in that it stresses the need for information-based decision making, and the assessment of significance (heritage value) as well as the magnitude of change, so that the conservation and understanding of our past will be approached in a proportionate manner. FAME welcomes the clarity that PPS brings to the breadth of the historic environment in its definition of heritage assets and of the need for investigation of “areas where there is a potential for such assets to be discovered” (HE1.3), although this should be reinforced in HE7.2 which should also refer to development sites with the potential to include historic assets. FAME also welcomes the explicit need for planning authorities to have publicly documented evidence (HE1.1), an endorsement of Historic Environment Records (HERs). The PPS also identifies the need for LPAs to “use appropriate expert advice to inform decision-making relating to heritage assets” (HE9.2). •

FAME would recommend that these aspects are further clarified by a statement emphasizing the need to maintain an appropriate level of expertise in the planning authorities, in order that the evidence and interpretation of its significance can adequately to inform planning decisions. In addition, the independence of that advice from other priorities that planning authorities may have, should be stressed. If the advice offered is not adopted by the planning authority, the reasons why it was over-ruled should be made available 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 the appropriate expertise, there remains no requirement on appropriate accreditation of those with the necessary skills and expertise. There continues to be no bar to any individual or organisation offering their services in historic environment practice regardless of their level of skill, expertise or quality with the consequent risk of unnecessary damage to the historic environment.

•

FAME is also concerned that sufficient resources will be made available to fulfil the obligations placed on planning authorities in an era of reduction to public expenditure, non-statutory services, such as much of the historic environment, are particularly vulnerable to cuts in public service

FAME welcomes the importance the draft PPS attributes to pre-application discussions and assessment, 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 of the significance of setting to heritage assets (HE8.1, HE9.6, HE11) enhances the holistic approach to the historic environment and the need for appropriate assessment of its significance as 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 and assessment process, that have not been previously designated as such. •

FAME would strongly recommend a more explicit reference to the inclusion of the built heritage 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 conservation approach 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 perception given is that built heritage falls in the latter rather than in both. Explicit clarification is recommended. Such a clarification would be in accordance with English Heritage’s guidance: Understanding Historic Buildings A guide to good recording practice 2006.

•

In addition the need for investigative conservation/field evaluation must include an understanding of the physical and chemical environment in which heritage assets have survived, so that if (as in HE10.1) the asset is to be “conserved” for the future, an understanding of why and how it has survived are established. Any development scheme that may lead to an adverse change to this conservation environment (e.g. in water quality or desiccation, piling activities etc) would need to undertake investigation of the nature of the burial environment so that an informed design can be produced that does not adversely affect the long-term conservation of the heritage asset. Monitoring as part of a management plan will also be necessary to ensure that long-term conservation of the 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 a change of wording that says planning authorities “would require” as opposed to the current “should” within the draft PPS.

•

In addition, care needs to be taken with other aspects of terminology, to ensure there is no conflict with other guidance. In particular EIA regulations use significance as a key word for meaning “significance of effect when assessing the magnitude of change against the sensitivity of the receptor”; “heritage value” is a term used to avoid confusion with the use of significance for a heritage asset. The divergence in terminology and confusion 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 its meaning between the two parts.

•

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

•

Furthermore the use of the word “setting” and the need to assess impact on setting for all heritage assets, could potentially lead to considerable confusion due to vagueness and subjectivity, 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 of repositories for archives, and enhanced facilities for Museums to manage the resultant records and artefacts from the investigations required during the planning process, for the public benefit. The wording of HE13.3 regarding archives is unacceptably weak and should be strengthened to require the deposition of the archive with an appropriate

depository and the appropriate resourcing and availability of those depositories. This is a major concern for our members, who already hold substantial volumes of archives for which there is no available repository, and this requires addressing urgently. •

FAME is also concerned that HE13.3, by referring to ‘developers maximising opportunities…’ implies optional rather than obligatory implementation of programmes of investigation and recording.

•

The PPS would be enhanced by cross-reference to other PPSs and PPGs to smooth potential contradictory statements and guidance between them.

•

Finally FAME believes that the introduction of this PPS would be an ideal opportunity to extend the principles incorporated within it to a commitment by statutory undertakers to apply the same approach. This would help to reduce the amount of un-quantified damage to the historic environment that is caused by the fact that this area of development is outside of planning control. The policies and protocols of Statutory Undertakers should be updated in line with the new PPS.

Historic Environment Practice Guide In FAME’s view, the Practice Guidance seems incomplete and lacks coherence and robustness to fulfil its role as a critical document within the process of implementing the new PPS. FAME considers the document needs a substantial rewriting in certain areas. FAME members would be pleased to assist in this as our members have extensive and wide-ranging experience of managing historic environment projects within the planning and development environment. Yours sincerely,

ROLAND J C SMITH FSA MIFA Chair of FAME C/o Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park SALISBURY Wiltshire SP4 6EB [email protected]