Pps 15 Consultation Rescue Response

RESCUE The British Archaeological Trust 15a Bull Plain, Hertford, Hertfordshire SG14 1DX Telephone: 01992-553377

[email protected] http://www.rescue-archaeology.org.uk

PPS Planning for the Historic Environment Comments by RESCUE: the British Archaeological Trust Introduction RESCUE is an entirely independent charity, which exists to promote and highlight the interests of archaeology and the historic environment within the United Kingdom. We have no links with 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 the draft PPS15: Planning for the Historic Environment. This response is arranged in three sections. As a series of specific questions have been posed, we have addressed these first, in order that the responses can easily be incorporated into the CLG consultation format. However, we are strongly of the opinion that there are additional concerns arising from this document that are not adequately addressed by the consultation questions. Therefore, two following sections are included here –to discuss issues arising from specific wording of the policies of the PPS (and arranged in the order of the paragraphs as they appear 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 scope of the consultation questions will be of use and interest. Proposed PPS15: - Planning for the Historic Environment Consultation Questions Responses: 1.

Does the PPS strike the right balance between advocating the conservation of what is important and enabling change? No. The balance between these two agendas is a difficult one to achieve. We do not believe that it has been accomplished wholly satisfactorily within the PPS – although there are some areas of 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 adequately defined, and would be better discussed in terms of character and importance, in addition to significance. In a similar vein, we would query whether ideas of “artistic” significance have a useful place within a document focussed on the historic environment and would need to see this idea expressed better in order for it to be acceptable. Whilst we recognise that change is inevitable and welcome in many situations, it is also the case that a strong presumption for preservation of existing features 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 climate change) to overpower preservation concerns. It should be emphasised that the historic environment can be a key aspect of regeneration, rather than the apparent barrier towards change that the PPS seems to consider it to be. The PPS is also rather confused in relation to considerations relating to archaeological sites, whereby the conservationist concerns which might relate to standing buildings will not be as relevant or helpful when considering wider agendas of archaeological research and investigation – much of which is necessarily destructive. When discussing issues of defining significance, or areas such as local planning policy, the PPS should be giving specific guidance to avoid 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 guidance is not clearly expressed. 2.

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 assets adequately covered)? No. The PPS is attempting to marry two conflicting agendas: that of the conservation and change management of historic buildings (currently the focus of PPG15) and that of mitigating damage 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 and battlefields, and accord such features equal weight. It is unsuccessful in adequately addressing a number of the concerns that arise however. For example, buried archaeological material cannot accurately 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 past human settlement makes prediction a haphazard science at best. The PPS fails to take this into account by failing to include provision for reasonable prospection policies – ones designed to investigate sites to determine their potential archaeological significance. The PPS also fails to appreciate the nature of assessing the significance of certain types of historic site – for example a battlefield which physically may exist only as an apparently empty field, but in historic terms may survive 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 they appear to be adequately catered for with the “heritage assets” definition as it is applied throughout the PPS. The PPS is also attempting to combine differing regimes of protection. Listed buildings currently enjoy statutory protection, as do Scheduled Monuments. However, all here appear to be lumped together with currently unprotected archaeological sites and landscape features. This causes confusion in the document within the sections regarding change management and the appropriateness of loss or alteration of assets, where it is not clearly stated that certain types of site or structure cannot be subject to alteration or loss due to much stronger alternative protection measures that may apply to them. It appears that the missing Heritage Protection Reform Bill may have been of relevance here, but with that Bill no longer being considered, it leaves the protection system outlined in the PPS lacking an adequate supporting framework. Paragraphs 1.8 and 1.9 are relevant within this discussion – describing as they do the context of the PPS (“one element of the Government’s ongoing programme of heritage protection reform”) and the single spectrum approach (“moving beyond the outdated distinction between buildings and archaeology”). Both statements are conceptually and practically flawed however, as there currently is no other element to the Government’s programme of heritage protection reform - this has been omitted from any programme 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 widely understood and self-explanatory terminology such as listed buildings or archaeology being “outdated”? Such an approach simply acts to pointlessly homogenise heritage features which in reality are best dealt with on a separate basis, whereby (for example) the specific needs of a site such as a Palaeolithic flint scatter or Iron Age Hill Fort can be addressed appropriately – rather than under the terms of a bland statement that is also expected to cover the differing requirements of a street of Victorian lamp posts or a medieval wall-painting.

3.

In doing so, does the PPS take appropriate account of the implications of the European Landscape Convention, and of the cultural dimensions of landscapes designated as National 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 role and changes to them”. This is most certainly not achieved with landscapes being included within the careless conglomeration of “heritage assets” as defined by the PPS, and whereby they barely warrant 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 that should 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 policies should be read in conjunction with other relevant statements of national planning policy, with the footnote indicating that they are consistent with various European Union Conventions and the 1972 UNESCO 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 the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, 1992). It is arguable that by adopting the unified approach towards “heritage assets”, the PPS does not fully or adequately comply with the majority of the provisions of Article 5 of Valetta either. Furthermore, the mandatory requirement to report chance discoveries of the archaeological heritage outlined in Article 2.iii of the Valetta Convention, is noticeably 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 the discoveries are likely to warrant designation” The obligatory requirement to report the discoveries in the first place is therefore absent from this and needs to be inserted if the UK is to comply with the provisions of this convention. 4.

Are the policies and principles set out in the PPS the key ones that underpin planning policy on the historic environment, or should others be included? The policies that are included are generally appropriate. We are pleased in particular to see the commitments to the preservation of heritage features, the new attention to the setting of heritage features, and the references to publication and archiving of the results of archaeological investigations. PPG16 contains a statement outlining that archaeological remains are a “finite and non-renewable resource” which has become a fundamental part of the process of dealing with archaeology within the planning process. It is disappointing that this well-accepted principle is not retained within the text of the PPS however, and given that it is a well-established principle, we would urge its return within any new policy statement. With reference to earlier comments (above), it is clear that policies to address the obvious probability that our existing archaeological evidence-base is incomplete must be included. Some local authorities have their own policies which require that all developments involving ground disturbance over a certain area in size (perhaps 0.4 – 0.5 hectares) should be subject to some form of archaeological assessment prior to development – to take account of the possibility that previously undiscovered buried archaeological remains might exist there, and be under threat from comprehensive development proposals. Within the context of the planning process this approach is not unreasonable, as it minimises the chances of encountering material once development has commenced. It also ensures that should any remains be encountered, they can be suitably assessed and accommodated in line with the rest of the Government’s historic environment and planning policies, and within appropriate and reasonable timescales. Such an enlightened policy framework 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 that the 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 made within the current PPG16-led process, and it is important to unequivocally refute this damaging assertion. Fundamentally, missing from the draft PPS policies however is an adequately-worded reaffirmation of the “polluter pays” principle that forms the heart of the developer-funded archaeological recording process outlined currently in PPG’s 15 and 16. It is stated on p.62 that

Help save the past for the future

policy HE13 is intended to continue this policy – yet HE13 does not explicitly say so, and indeed is so opaquely worded that alternative interpretations could be assigned to its meaning. This should be seen as a step backwards from the current position, which is more clearly set out in PPG’s 15 and 16. There are further problems also with elements of policy HE13. If read correctly, HE13.3 states that developers should “maximise opportunities to advance understanding of the asset’s significance before this is lost”, “publish the outcomes of such investigations”, “deposit copies of the reports with the relevant Historic Environment Record” AND “offer the archive to a local museum or other public depository” – all enforced with planning conditions imposed by the local authority to “ensure such work takes place before commencement of the development”. If interpreted correctly to its letter, this would mean no development could commence until final deposition of the archaeological archive and publication of the results had taken place – a situation that sometimes doesn’t (and cannot) come about until years after the on-site archaeological investigation occurred. Is the Government satisfied that such a poorly-worded policy could be implemented within the current planning framework adequately? Such poor attention to detail in the wording is disappointing. We would strongly argue that policy HE13 in its current state is not fit for purpose. It should be redrafted and then submitted for further consultation with the professional community that will be required to enforce it. 5.

Do you agree that it is the “significance” of a historic asset that we are trying to conserve? Yes – although the planning process also dictates that the term “significance” requires adequate definition if the policies are to be implemented appropriately. In the majority of cases the term will translate on a practical basis to the meaning the physical remains or evidence of the heritage feature, which doesn’t appear to be adequately understood within the definition outlined in the PPS. The term is also open to subversion – it is not adequately expressed that economic significance (i.e. measurable or saleable value) is not what is meant here and should not be a consideration. There is more to “significance” however, and terms such as “character” or “importance” should be used to supplement and define “significance” to a greater degree. It is also not made adequately clear who will be the final arbiter of “significance” where there is conflict within the planning process between local authorities and prospective developers. Will it be the applicant who is required to submit the statement of significance (policy HE8.1)? The local authority that considers the evidence (HE8.2)? Or perhaps English Heritage or the appropriate Secretary of State should perform this role independently? The ultimate holder of responsibility for the decision-making process must be made more obvious.

6.

Does the PPS comply with devolutionary principles with regard to what is expected at regional and local levels? No. It fails to acknowledge effectively the fact that regional and local authority provision for the Historic Environment is under-resourced and in some cases wholly absent. Many authorities do not maintain adequately resourced or staffed HERs, and some have no Conservation or Archaeological Officers on their staff and do not have access to such expertise. The PPS must surely be accompanied by appropriate legislation to make provision of or access to, HER and historic environment advice services, a statutory requirement of local authorities – otherwise the Government can have no strong expectation that its stated policies will be implemented in the correct way across the country. The Government should also take the opportunity of this PPS to make a much stronger statement to local authorities on their leadership responsibilities in this and other Historic Environment matters, making it abundantly clear that they are required to provide, permanent and specially skilled heritage staff with appropriate data and resources, especially HERs. Clearer statements regarding capacity building at local levels so the expertise and resources to implement these policies needs to be made.

Help save the past for the future

7.

Does the PPS strike the right balance between the objectives of conserving what is significant in the historic environment and mitigating the effects of climate change? This is debatable. Whilst the importance of climate change is not to be underestimated, it is the wider concept of sustainability that is more important when considering historic features and sites within the planning process, and a recognition of the important role heritage has to play in conservation and regeneration. However, Rescue is of the opinion that a Government policy statement on the Historic Environment should actually concentrate on that addressing issue alone – rather than attempting to tailor the advice to accommodate specified non-heritage concerns. Mitigating the effects of climate change within the development process is better served by proper dedicated guidance on that issue, rather than being introduced into other policy with potentially confusing results. It is also perhaps worth pointing out that there is significant archaeological evidence available for climate change in past environments, from the effects and consequences of the last great ice age, through to suggested evidence for the cooling of the climate in the 12th-14th centuries. Many of the monuments and finds and features that are to be considered as part of this guidance have actually stood the test of durability through such episodes. Rather than accepting that perhaps loss, damage or alteration of heritage features may be a necessary consequence in tackling climate change, the Government could usefully consider that study of relevant sites and features could potentially yield important evidence as to how we may address the problem in the future, and that as a result, more effective heritage protection and retention measures than they have outlined here might be advantageous.

8.

Does the PPS make it clear to decision-makers what they should do, and where they have more flexibility? Are there any risks or benefits you would like to highlight for the historic environment sector? No. It is not made clear who is actually to be the final arbiter of decision-making with regards to assessing the significance of heritage features, as outlined in comments above. The terminology of the PPS is not adequate to enforce within the planning process either. The word “should” in particular is open to interpretation, and is easily read as meaning “might” or “ought to” within the PPS. This term in particular needs to be replaced with accurate wording. Where it means “must”, then the PPS should state so. Where flexibility is required and catered for, alternative terminology that is clear needs to be used.

9.

The draft PPS highlights the importance of ensuring that adequate information and evidence bases are available, so that the historic environment and the significance of heritage assets are fully taken into account in plan making and decision taking. At the same time we are concerned to ensure that information requirements are proportionate and do not cause unnecessary delays. Are you content we have the balance right? If not how would you like to see our policy adjusted? (Policies HE8 and HE9 are particularly relevant to this question.) The historic environment is not fully taken into account in decision-taking as outlined in the PPS, as there is no provision for assessing sites where the existing evidence-base is thin, or that have never been subject to archaeological study or investigation, as we have stated in this response previously. In this respect, the balance is not right and this needs to be addressed. There is also a lack of appreciation within the PPS that there are alternative sources for the study and assessment of the historic environment to HERs, and that these should also be consulted. Policies HE8 and HE9 depend upon local authorities and other decision-making bodies having access to the necessary and appropriate professional advice and experts. Again as we have stated previously, this is not the case across the country, which means that many of the policies set out here simply will not be

Help save the past for the future

implemented locally due to a lack of resources. 10.

In your opinion is the PPS a document that will remain relevant for at least the next 20 years? Do you see other developments on the horizon that have implications for the policies set out in the PPS?

Emphatically no is the answer to the first question here. Developments in landscape and battlefield study – two areas which are relatively new and which are patently under-represented within the PPS – will inevitably leave the document as it currently stands in need of revision in the near future. Pinning the guidance to the nebulous concept of “significance” is also of dubious durability, as “significance” is an almost entirely subjective term – what is significant to one person or decision-making body is not necessarily of equal significance to another. Victorian restorers for example believed that churches were of significance in their role as places of worship, and updated them according to their taste – in many cases thereby removing earlier elements that we would consider to be of enormous significance today. A modern Conservation assessment might therefore as a consequence be unimpressed with the significance of a Victorian church – although the Victorian Society might challenge that assessment. How would such a debate inform, or satisfactorily progress, the planning process to which this document ultimately relates? It is also the case that with the Government’s obvious abandonment of the Heritage Protection Reform Bill, the idea of the unified “heritage asset” which is central to the PPS is itself already an outdated concept. Should the PPS be issued in this form, with none of the supporting HPR legislation in place, it would soon become unworkable. 11.

Do you agree with the conclusions of the consultation stage impact assessment? In particular, have we correctly identified and resourced any additional burdens for local planning authorities? Is the impact on owners/developers correctly identified and proportionate to their responsibilities?

No. The conclusions of the impact assessment present a utopian idea of the current state of heritage protection resourcing which simply isn’t the case across the country. There will need to be a significant increase in resourcing for HERs and conservation advice services in a number of authorities if the policies outlined here are to be adequately enforced locally. The figure of an additional £90,000 pa to enhance HERs so they include historic buildings is particularly disturbing – representing as it does (in effect) a paltry additional three members of appropriately qualified staff to update the HERs of every local authority in the entire country. Is this seriously considered b y the Government to be adequate? The assessment of the impact of the PPS on developers does not inspire confidence either – for example it is stated (p.29) “...developers would not be charged (for HER consultation) if an HER contains no information about a particular building.” However, as publicly accessible archives, HERs do not charge for information at all – they usually charge for the officer time it takes to examine and compile information following a formal request from an individual or organisation that is not able or willing to visit the HER in person. In this case, whether or not the HER contains any information on a site is irrelevant – it is the act of the searching of the resource that will incur the charge. The Government appears to have been lacking the knowledge of practical implementation as it currently stands when drawing these conclusions – perhaps also lacking (as indeed we all do at the moment) the appropriate specific guidance document from English Heritage upon which to assess these proposals fully. The suggestion that possible additional costs to local authorities of the PPS’s implementation would be offset by clearer local planning policy is misguided. Current local authority historic environment policy provision is fragmentary at best, and there is conflicting opinion amongst local authorities as to whether or not they are actually required to have specific policies of their own

Help save the past for the future

to address historic environment issues at all. We would welcome a clear statement on this matter from the Government: Are local authorities formally required to have historic environment-specific policies within their Local Development Frameworks – and if so, should they be located in the Core Strategy documents or elsewhere? The current situation is extremely confused. 12. Do you think that the policy draft PPS will have a differential impact, either positive or negative, on people, because of their gender, race or disability? If so how in your view should we respond? We particularly welcome the views of organisations and individuals with specific expertise in these areas. No. There appears to be no reference to these issues within PPS, and no need for any. Paragraph Specific Issues (In Paragraph Order) 1.1 – 1.4 We strongly agree with the thrust of these opening paragraphs. It is interesting to note that this is defined in terms of interest and character and not the less precise “significance” that permeates the subsequent policy provisions. It could perhaps be more forcefully stressed that the Historic Environment of an area can and should be used as a cultural reference point to ensure local planning decisions take account of specific local distinctiveness. The existing statement in PPG16 referring to the archaeological resource as a “finite and irreplaceable resource” would be an important inclusion within these opening statements, which themselves should be included as part of the PPS when and if it comes into force rather than discarded as an extraneous part of the consultation document. 1.9 We reject the suggestion that the distinction between buildings and archaeology is 'outdated', and would instead strongly argue that such distinctions are well founded, with the many varied relationships between these two distinct types of heritage being well understood generally. The bland and blanket term “heritage assets” does little to foster either interest or understanding in the historic environment, and is not likely to lead to clarity within the planning process where specific high-quality accurate data is a required to inform appropriate decision making. 1.11 The “significance” – led approach is a major cause for concern, as the principle is highly subjective, as we have outlined above. The paragraph makes reference to assessing an assets value to people in the future also, which is clearly not possible. Should this paragraph survive in any similar form in the policy document that results from this consultation, then this reference to future value should be removed – it is only possible to assess the relative value of a site, feature or find in terms of our present priorities and understanding. Annex A 1-5 The introduction states that the policies should be read in conjunction with other relevant statements of national planning policy, with the footnote indicating that they are consistent with

Help save the past for the future

various European Union Conventions and the 1972 UNESCO 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 the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, 1992), as we have outlined above. Many of the relevant standards and guidance documents referred to in the accompanying Practice Guide are not available for consultation or comment either. In particular, we are missing the Government’s promised “Vision Statement” for Heritage, which presumably underpins much of what is set out in the PPS. Paragraph 5 makes no mention of the benefits of research. Archaeological sites and historic landscapes in particular require study, investigation and interpretation by specialists for their full potential as “heritage assets” to be understood or realised. There are very few archaeological sites that are instantly accessible to the public without such research-led interpretation being necessary. It should be recognised within the text of the PPS that not only is the UK currently a world leader in terms of archaeological theoretical and technical research, but that the continuation of this practice is supported within the study of sites affected by their contact with the planning process. HE 1.1 We support the principle of ensuring a suitable evidence-base for decision-making within the planning process, and agree that this evidence should be sufficient to inform the process adequately. The word “should” is not strong enough to secure these provisions within the policy however. It should be a statutory requirement that local planning authorities maintain or have access to a Historic Environment Record – as should the requirement to ensure that they are suitably resourced and supported by qualified staff. Without such provision, there can be no confidence on the part of the Government that this policy, or any of the subsequent policies, will be implemented on a local level. HE 1.2 The policy makes no provision for how the process might be carried forward in cases where there is a distinct lack of evidence, due to a lack of prior study. HE 1.3 We agree with this policy. However, see the note above (HE1.2). We would stress that there is a significant difference between areas which have the “potential” for remains to be discovered, and those where there has been no previous assessment or research. HE 2.1 This policy might usefully include reference to Regional and County Archaeological Research Frameworks. The use of the word “should” (“should inform the Regional Spatial Strategy”) is confusing. Does it actually mean “must”? HE 2.2 The RSS cannot ensure a consistent approach across the region, as it contains little of relevance regarding the Historic Environment, and operates as part of a planning system currently mired in confusion and unpredictability due to a lack of clarity. The word “enhancement” here is ambiguous. Would this include archaeological research as outlined in the comments above?

Help save the past for the future

HE 2.3 This statement should make reference to the principles of “embodied energy” within Historic Structures, and commit to a policy of recommending the sensitive and sustainable re-use of historic structures more strongly. HE 3.1 We agree with this policy. We would however recommend the omission of the phrase “as appropriate” in reference to the requirement for LPAs to set out positive strategies for the conservation, enhancement and enjoyment of the historic environment. It is also the case that archaeological sites and landscapes can have wider regional or national importance, that may be obscured should an entirely locally led study framework and assessment process be adopted. There should be some consideration or mention of the importance of regional and national archaeological research frameworks within this policy. HE 3.2 Not all development is about constructing buildings. Therefore, we would recommend that the reference in this policy should be changed to state that the “...historic environment should be seen as a stimulus to inspire new developments of imaginative and high quality design...” It should also be stated (again with reference to the concepts of embodied energy and sustainable development), that there should be a strong preference for the re-use of existing historic structures within regeneration and planning, rather than for the systematic “sweeping clean” of areas that has become prevalent in certain towns and cities in recent years. HE 4.2 The advantages of reusing heritage assets would be better expressed within this policy through the concept of sustainable development rather than issues of climate change. The potential loss of important heritage features as a direct result of the “excuse” of climate change concerns must not be permitted. Once again, the principle of embodied energy within standing buildings should be stressed here. HE 5.1 The concept of permitted development is useful within the planning process – but enforcement of Article 4 directions on a site-by-site basis is a more costly and lengthy a process than it needs to be. To alleviate this, local authorities might be required to produce local lists of specific features, sites and areas where permitted development rights for all classes of development have either been removed, or where even minor developments will require a specific permission. Such a process would in effect form a workable compliment to the principles set out in the failed Heritage Protection Reform Bill, regarding Heritage Partnership Agreements, and would greatly assist in protecting isolated or small-scale undesignated heritage assets. HE 6.1 Should the Government decide to ignore the advice of the wider heritage sector and not make such services a statutory local authority requirement, this policy should stress the responsibility/requirement of local authorities to maintain adequately resourced heritage advice and policy monitoring services.

Help save the past for the future

HE 7.1 We agree with this principle. However, in practice, such pre-application discussion and liaison is often ad-hoc, or cursory. Many local authorities cannot maintain sufficient planning staff to provide this service adequately, and some have abandoned it altogether. Pre-application work is difficult to monitor or quantity, which means that in the current planning process where the focus is wholly on measurable statistical data and timescales rather the than quality of the service or its end product, such concerns have by necessity become secondary. This damaging Government obsession with meaningless targets must be revised in the near future if policies such as HE7.1 are to be effectively implemented. HE 7.2 The policy provisions of PPG15 and 16 requiring developers and applicants to fully fund the archaeological evidence-gathering process (Desk-based assessment, evaluation and mitigation), together with the subsequent analyses, publication and archive deposition should be stressed within this paragraph. The word “should” is also not clear in the context of this policy. HE 7.3 The strong financial benefits to developers of pre-application discussion and assessment should be made clearer. Pre-application discussion and assessment – if undertaken properly and within a suitable timescale - considerably reduces risk and alleviates the need for large-scale contingency planning for unexpected discoveries. The last sentence of this policy should be removed, as it renders the policy itself ineffective. HE 8.1 The policy indicates that ‘Local planning authorities should require the applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance’, but does not state that the applicant is required to provide this at their own cost. The policy should also state categorically that the local authority has the right to dispute or refuse such a description of significance, where it is clearly incomplete, inadequate or blatantly inaccurate. HE 8.2 This policy should make clear the duty of LPA to provide appropriately skilled staff of their own to consider evidence that might be submitted in support of planning proposals. HE 8.3 Additional guidance on the processes involved in determining “significance” is required to support this policy. A statement should also be made regarding the process that would need to be followed in the eventuality of applications being validated prior to full assessment of historic environment concerns being conducted. Such an occurrence is extremely common within the current planning system – primarily due to the overall lack of local planning staff and the overwhelming focus purely on statistical measurability rather than general overall quality of the product. HE 9.1 As has been mentioned previously, much of the implementation of this policy (and others of HE9) depends upon the capacity of the local authorities with regards to the appropriate expertise and resources.

Help save the past for the future

HE 9.2 This policy should make clear the duty of local authorities to provide appropriately skilled staff of their own to consider evidence. As it stands, some authorities may continue or adopt the practice of hiring in advice on a case-by-case basis, which is not to be recommended. HE 9.3 We would support this viewpoint. The expert role of national amenity societies should be included within this policy. HE 9.4 It is arguable that enhancing the significance of a heritage asset is not possible. Heritage cannot be created, as it requires the passage of time to do so. A heritage site can be physically enhanced through research and the presentation of the results of research, through restoration, appropriate management and through sensitive adaptation. However, its heritage “significance” will surely remain the same. HE 9.5 It should be stressed more forcefully within this policy that mitigating the effects of climate change is not in itself an acceptable reason for the loss or denudation of a heritage asset. HE 9.7 We welcome the inclusion of setting issues within Government policy. However, it is greatly to be regretted that the English Heritage guidance on setting is not available for review to ascertain whether or not the policy provision set out in HE 9.7 is adequate. HE 9.8 This policy is of particular concern. The statement that there should be a strong presumption in favour of retention of heritage assets is noticeably missing from this section. Without such a statement, the points that follow simply become a developers’ charter for demolition of heritage features. For example, ‘the suggestion that removal of a heritage asset may be justified where it “impedes all reasonable uses of the site” is an interpretative judgement open to subjectivity. A developer’s concept of “reasonable” will not necessarily be the same as that of the local public or wider community. The language appears to largely relate to built heritage as well, which is not encouraging within a policy framework that is supposed to represent buried remains and landscapes. Particularly in the case of archaeological sites or scheduled monuments, it might be the case that they have little other viable function than as heritage features. This does not diminish their importance or detract from their significance, but it might render a site difficult to develop, and as such under this policy, a justification for the removal of the asset would be considerably easier to make. The policy also ignores the possibility of Article 4 Direction, Section 104 Agreement, Listing or Scheduling as alternatives to redevelopment for potentially “unviable” heritage assets. We would strongly recommend that the language used in this policy requires revision to ensure it’s meaning is accurately presented. HE 9.9 We agree with this policy. The framework for determining “deliberate” neglect will need to be set out however, in order to differentiate deliberate acts of neglect from (for example) casual deterioration, or neglect through long-term lack of access to appropriate resources or expertise.

Help save the past for the future

HE 10.2 Whilst we agree with this paragraph as it stands, it does perhaps imply that there are envisaged to be scenarios whereby the loss of grades I and II* buildings, registered parks and gardens or Scheduled Monuments would be acceptable. With such features having been through the process of assessment to determine their importance, we do not believe that this should be the case, and it could be specified as being so more forcefully here. It should also be outlined within this policy that the loss of even small elements of such features could be damaging to their overall significance, and must be avoided. HE 10.4 This section appears to leave wide-ranging decisions regarding significance open to interpretation. We would also recommend that within this section, the importance and value of Conservation Area Appraisals should be outlined. HE 10.6 The treatment of non-designated assets of archaeological interest is welcome, but should be widened to include registered parks and gardens, landscapes of heritage importance, structures and former battlefields. The footnote to this policy recommends obtaining advice from the relevant County Archaeologist – so it is worth reiterating once again that such a position (or equally-qualified individual) will not necessarily be present within a local authority, due to the ongoing programme of cuts to such services in recent years. Statutory protection for such advice services must be put in place. HE 13.1 We strongly support this policy. We also believe that this principle could be alluded to elsewhere in the PPS – particularly with relation to HE 9.8, for example. HE 13.2 Once again, the issue of non-statutory HERs, and the capacity of local authorities to implement this policy as a consequence, is relevant. The word “investigating” would perhaps be better replaced with “researching” for this policy to be expressed accurately. HE 13.3 This policy requires significant clarification. It is stated elsewhere within this consultation document (Annex A, Option 2, HE 13 – policy principles) that this is intended to act as a “… continuation of policy currently set out in PPGs 15 and 16, whereby applicants are expected to fund the costs of assessing, evaluating and if necessary, mitigating the effects of their proposals on the historic environment”. However, the policy itself is not expressed in these terms, and refers simply to the vague suggestion of maximising “opportunities to advance understanding”. Why is this so poorly set out in the policy, when the meaning is expressed so much better elsewhere? Surely in a document that is intended to simplify processes, such oblique references must be removed. It must be made absolutely clear that it is the duty of developers to plan for and cover the costs of assessment, evaluation and mitigation works, followed by such post-excavation analyses, publication and outreach as is necessary, and that this work should follow the agreed practices and guidance of the relevant professional institutions, be carried out by suitably qualified organisations and/or individuals, and be agreed by the local planning authority prior to commencement of any development works. As it is currently worded, we do not believe that local authorities could implement this policy.

Help save the past for the future

It is also the case here that the archives resulting from such investigations should not simply be ‘offered’ to a ‘local museum or other public depository’, but mandated by the local authority for deposition in a (potentially specified) public depository which is able to meet the basic professional standards. The consent should include specifying work to be undertaken by the depository in order to preserve the archive, including but not limited to providing access, digitisation, education and recreation programmes. It is of some concern to us that more consideration has not been applied to the issue of archaeological planning conditions within this PPS. The current Grampian condition outlined in PPG16 has proven to be successful in allowing for the recovery of material on sites threatened by development. However it is also the case that the difficulty in applying such a condition to a process that is often phased to encompass the entire timescale of a development, and that might not be completed until long after the development works have been finished, has been a significant source of confusion and frustration for both developers and planners alike. This situation has resulted in a differentiation in the practice of applying the current condition in different authorities, which is not to be encouraged. RESCUE is disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to provide revised conditions which better explain the archaeological process and which can be applied (and therefore discharged) at the appropriate juncture. We would strongly urge that this concern be addressed urgently. We would recommend that either a series of new conditions should be drafted, that cover assessment and evaluation, excavation, post-excavation analysis, outreach activities, reporting and archiving requirements separately, or (and perhaps preferably), an extended modular condition should be instituted which covers these points, elements of which can be partially discharged as development works progress, without full discharge taking place. We believe that local authorities would welcome such an innovation, and at the very least, should be consulted on changes and enhancements of this nature. General Points There are a number of circular arguments thrown up when considering the positioning of the PPS within the planning process. It is not clear for example, where local historic environment planning policy will sit within the Local Development Frameworks, or whether there is a local need for any such policies. There are references to the Regional plans as providing the upper tier of this framework, yet the South – East plan suggests that local authorities should have their own policy provisions. GOSE has indicated however that local authorities should not replicate existing National Policy within their LDFs. The system is apparently confused and would benefit from a clearly worded statement from the Government. The language of the PPS is not strong enough in a number of areas to ensure it is enforceable within the planning process. The word “should” is used where (we are lead to believe) it means “must”. We have highlighted a few examples in our comments but this vague terminology runs throughout the document. The terms “should” and “must” have different meanings, which will not support a consistency of approach from one authority to another when these policies are implemented. Where a local authority, or a developer, or an applicant, is required to perform a function or undertaken a task, then it must be clear that this is not an optional undertaking. Similarly, where there is a necessity for flexibility, this ought to be made obvious. Too many of the documents that are relevant for discussion in determining the response to this consultation are not available. It cannot be acceptable for an incomplete consultation to be launched, and the fact that it has been is indicative of Government confusion and English Heritage’s unpreparedness. We are asked to comment without the benefit of the Government’s “Vision Statement”, English Heritage’s “Principles of Selection” and supporting documents, guidance on Historic Environment Records, guidance on Core Strategies and Environmental Assessment, papers on Heritage Partnership Agreements and the promised “Setting of Historic Assets: English Heritage Guidance” – all of which are mentioned within the accompanying Practice Guide text as being of relevance. This is far too extensive a list of missing supporting documentation to allow for

Help save the past for the future

either an informed consultation process, or for a determination to be made as to whether the policies of the PPS or the provisions of the Practice Guide are adequate. This consultation process should be deferred until at least all the relevant information is available for comment. We are not convinced that the assessment of the likely costs of the implementation of these policies has reached accurate conclusions. A number of local authorities do not have the capacity to enforce these provisions, as they have removed or curtailed their heritage advice services in recent years. Similarly, with the blurring of the distinction between archaeology, landscapes and buildings within these policies, the degree of training that will be required to bring local authority conservation officers, archaeologists and landscape specialists up to the required knowledge levels in areas outside their current disciplines or where no local capacity presently exists will prove to be considerable – we would suggest far greater than the assessment made here. We also dispute the implied suggestion of cost-neutrality with regards to the effects on HERs of these policies. In the absence of any national guidelines or standards on what an HER actually is, what it should comprise and how it should be run, we do not believe that any such conclusion can be confidently drawn. On a final point, without the Heritage Protection Reform Bill itself, it is patently the case that many of the principles behind the PPS and the Practice Guide (such as the unified approach to heritage conservation and the concept of “heritage assets”) have no supporting framework. Once again this suggests confusion and a lack of joined-up thinking that should be addressed quickly. RESCUE can only recommend in this case that the process of Heritage Protection Reform should be halted and reviewed, and that the implementation of its various facets should only be considered within the necessary supporting framework and at the appropriate time.

RESCUE: October 2009

Help save the past for the future