Pps 15 - Practice Guide: Rescue Comments

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: Historic Environment Practice Guide. Comments by RESCUE: the British Archaeological Trust Introduction RESCUE is an entirely independent charity, which exists to promote the interests of archaeology and the historic environment in 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 are pleased to take this opportunity to respond to the consultation on the PPS15 accompanying Historic Environment Practice Guide. In the absence of specific consultation questions, and with the stated invitation to comment on the text of the Practice Guide, it is clear that the simplest way to respond to this document is to comment on the various issues with relevance to the respective paragraph numbers, and to maintain the order of the document as it currently stands (the “living draft” version of 24.07.2009) Where issues of concern are not within numbered paragraphs (for example in the case of the boxes inset within the text), this has been indicated by referring to the paragraphs on either side. Where we feel there have been omissions, or where there are additional overarching points of concern, we have appended our comments under the heading of “General Issues” following the comments on the specific text. Throughout the document there are a number of obvious typographical errors which we have not raised, as presumably these will be corrected later in the drafting process. PPS Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Practice Guide. Paragraph 5 The Government’s “...statement on its vision for the historic environment...” should be the underlying keystone of the PPS and its supporting guidance. It is unreasonable to expect fully informed comments on these documents to be returned without such a manifestly important statement of intent being available. A lack of joined-up thinking is evident here, and is extremely unhelpful to the process. 6-7 (box) – “Significance” The attempt to define “significance” is well meaning but ultimately flawed. Each and every historic site has its own unique character, history and significance, which can only be fully defined through investigation and study. The wording here implies rather that significance could potentially be ascertained through designation – with designated “assets” already being seen as more significant than non-designated ones. This of course is not the case and the wording here needs to be tightened to make clear that this is not what is intended. The definition also excludes a number of elements of our historic environment that are equally “significant”. The “strictly defined” historic environment is poor terminology for example – since the vast majority of our chronological past is undocumented and therefore not “historic” at all.

Help save the past for the future

In addition the reliance on “past human activity” excludes the vast corpus of environmental data – a particular issue of concern to archaeological study of prehistoric settlement, occupation patterns and palaeoenvironments. It is certainly the case that environmental factors influenced past human activity rather than the other way around, as the definition given here would imply. Furthermore, the definition appears to exclude surviving elements of our past landscapes such as heritage trees or peat bogs, which it can reasonably be argued are equally as important as surviving human structures – if not more so. The definition also indicates that archaeological investigation of an asset may be required to establish or understand significance. This is true, but it strongly implies that there is a known asset to investigate in the first place. Unfortunately for the implementation of this premise, it is the case that the vast majority of the country remains archaeologically unexplored – meaning that there must be an enormous number of sites and finds of “significance” that await discovery. Indeed this was proven to be the case very recently with the discovery of the Staffordshire Hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold and silver. What provision is there within either the PPS15 policy framework, or the Practice Guide advice, to take account of the possibility of currently unrecorded and therefore unknown sites and /or finds of significance existing on a site, and therefore making provision for archaeological prospection on hitherto unexplored sites to take place? It appears, very little in fact – a situation which MUST be rectified prior to these documents being issued formally. 7 As this is a planning – related practice guide, it must be acknowledged within the text that there will at times be conflicting opinions as to the nature of the “significance” of a site. It would be helpful here to not only define how a final decision should be reached, but also which individual or body would be the final arbiter of a decision (whether it be the owner, their agents, the Local Planning Authority, English Heritage or the Secretary of State). Whilst it is clear that the first key stage of assessing significance is understanding the nature of the asset, there is no provision within this paragraph for archaeological remains that are currently not recorded in HERs or local archives, because as outlined above, they await initial discover. A great deal of pre-determination archaeological evaluation carried out under PPG16 is designed to better assess the likely nature and extent of hitherto unrecorded archaeological sites – as well as for those for which little information is available. This is a key component in ensuring better-informed planning decisions are made. 9 RESCUE is pleased to note that the importance of Historic Environment Records is recognised. However HERs and the advisory services which they support are constantly under threat of removal by short-sighted and short-term local authority internal departmental and budgetary considerations. To enable policy HE1 of the PPS to be implemented, HERs and historic environment advisory capacity must be made a statutory requirement of all local planning authorities. Whilst we recognise that it is not strictly the remit of the Practice Guide consultation to call for this, it is impossible to see how it can be implemented in those areas where such services have already been removed or operationally curtailed. English Heritage MUST take the opportunity of using this feedback to indicate to the Government that implementation of this PPS is reliant upon such services and resources being in place. 9-10 (box) The definition once again incorrectly refers simply to “human endeavour”. Note the comments we have given above regarding wider areas of environmental heritage that are also contained within the information held in modern HERs. 10 The wording here could be more explicit in its meaning. For example, the phrase “...planning authorities may find it useful to:..” is easily dismissed, and should be more proscriptive for use in an effective planning system (“local authorities should:” would be far better). A bullet point indicating that: “local authorities should make reasonable policy provision for exploring the possibility of a site containing hitherto undiscovered archaeological remains” is required. An effective

Help save the past for the future

example of such provision can be seen in Surrey, where local planning policies requiring archaeological assessment and if necessary evaluation prior to development on sites over 0.4 hectares in size have resulted in the discovery of a number of sites, some of regional or national significance. Such sites have the potential to reshape our interpretation of past settlement and occupation in the south-east of England, and sites of comparable importance must remain as yet undiscovered across the rest of the country. 17 Information regarding heritage provision within Local Development Frameworks is not clear or easily digested. It should be recognised within the LDF process that policies regarding the historic environment must be included in Core Strategies. There appears to be conflicting advice on this issue being given to local authorities, with the result that some authorities do have heritage-specific policies within the LDF documentation, whilst others do not. This apparent confusion will not lead to a sustainable or easily comprehensible national planning system. The Practice Guide should make it much clearer that local authorities are required to have their own policies regarding the historic environment, and where actually these should be located within the LDF documentation. In many cases, it will sadly now be too late for local authorities to include historic environment policies within their Core Strategies. 29-30 (box) The large blank area in this box where the desk-based assessment procedure should be outlined is not helpful and suggests that there was inadequate input from archaeological specialists in the drafting of this Practice Guide (as they would instantly have noted the omission). See discussion relevant to the inset box between paragraphs 59-60 with regard to this section also. With regard to the text available for comment on evaluation, it must be stressed that this technique is not only used when interest is indicated by assessment. It is frequently used where assessment has proven to be inconclusive, and is indeed, our only fully reliable method whereby a site can be examined for the evidence relating to non-visible archaeology or prehistoric remains. The phrase “opening up” and the suggestion of CCTV as a technique of archaeological evaluation further suggests a lack of expert input in the drafting of these paragraphs, which we strongly recommend is rectified following this consultation. With reference to the final sentence, it should also be pointed out that there are a great many historic environment specialists and archaeological experts working in relevant organisations that are not members of the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers. ALGAO is not an inclusive organisation, so the majority of Archaeological Development Control Officers, HER Officers, Landscape Advisors, Finds Liaison Officers and Conservation Officers working within local authorities and who should be listed within this section as useful contact points, are specifically excluded from ALGAO’s membership by its selective constitution. RESCUE suggests that either this is taken into account within the wording of this section, which should be changed to recommend the relevant local authorities as the appropriate contact point, or (and most preferably), English Heritage, as a major sponsor of ALGAO, should strongly encourage the body to revise its constitution and make its membership more inclusive and relevant. 30 It is not clear whether this guidance applies simply to designated heritage assets, or whether Heritage Partnership Agreements can be considered for all heritage assets. 31 This paragraph appears to be focussed almost exclusively on standing buildings. Some consideration is required to make the paragraph relevant to all heritage assets – including buried remains and landscapes. 35 A statement should be added outlining that where the understanding of significance has not been adequately determined, it is reasonable for the local authority to request further research and possibly archaeological fieldwork to reach a planning decision.

Help save the past for the future

36 It is stated that “After carrying out the assessment of significance and the impact of the proposal on it, local planning authorities are encouraged (to) discuss the findings with the applicant...”. This implies that it is the local authority that will be assessing significance of an asset. However, archaeological assessment is the responsibility of the applicant to assess, through the commissioning and submission of desk-based assessment (as outlined earlier in the Practice Guide). Presumably, this answers the question RESCUE raised previously in this response regarding who is the final arbiter of significance (i.e. it is the local authority that carries out the final assessment of significance as this statement says). However, the apparent mixed meanings regarding the phrase “assessment” in relation to decision-making and evidence gathering, and the differing roles of the applicant with regard to standing structures and buried remains throughout the Practice Guide, can only lead to confusion when it is attempted to implement the policies of the PPS. It also implies that the local authority will have access to the appropriately qualified staff to complete the assessment of significance – which is patently not the case in many authorities. 37 The definition of “archaeological interest” is not given within the Practice Guide. It has been suggested at English Heritage PPS-related “events” that the definition should equate to assets that require practical investigation to enhance knowledge and therefore establish significance. However, this would most likely not correspond to the public’s perception of “archaeological interest”, which almost certainly would relate simply to ideas of buried remains. Interestingly, this paragraph appears to relate to buried remains, rather than the strange investigative definition, implying that inadequate consideration to the definition has been given overall, and once again, that the relevant archaeological specialist involvement in the drafting of this document was not in place. Given that it appears to correctly refer to archaeology, RESCUE is actually satisfied with the wording of this paragraph as it stands, although we would strongly recommend that in order to emphasise the fragile nature of archaeological material, the existing statements in PPG16 outlining archaeology as a finite and non-renewable resource, could usefully be transferred to this section. 48 We agree with this statement. However, it would be helpful for some guidance here on such issues: who is to decide what the public benefit would be? Or would perhaps the public benefit be better pursued through wider-ranging academic studies of a site or the application of specialist analytical techniques? The suggestion that public benefits could be secured through the use of planning conditions is encouraging, although it would be advisable to include a suggested wording or scope for such a “public benefit” condition within this guidance. 57-58 We strongly support the advice given in these two paragraphs. 59 There is a fundamental area of concern missing from the process outlined in paragraph 59, and that is the requirement for the developer to fully resource (i.e. finance) the recording process. As policy HE13 is intended as a continuation of the PPG15 and 16 – led policies whereby applicants are expected to fund the costs of assessing, evaluating and then (if necessary) mitigating the impacts of their proposals, this requirement for developer funding MUST be explicitly stated, in order to allow for proper implementation of the policy and to avoid potential confusion, conflict and delay in the planning process. Within the bullet points outlined in the second section, the wording should state clearly that “...any investigation is carried out to a high standard, to an appropriate level of detail, by a qualified organisation or individual.”, to ensure that the necessary professional standards for such work are adhered to. A fourth bullet point could be added, indicating that the results of the work must be submitted to the local authority and subsequently be agreed as acceptable, in order to satisfy any planning conditions. 59-60 (box) Written Scheme of Investigation RESCUE is pleased to note that a list of themes that should be considered within a WSI has been included. We believe however that this could usefully be cross referenced with the appropriate Institute for Archaeologists Standards and Guidance papers, which provide additional and more in-

Help save the past for the future

depth detail of the need for and scope of these types of documents. The third bullet point in the list ought to say “post-excavation analysis of results” rather than “assessment”. Bearing in mind the consideration of Desk-Based Assessments earlier in the Practice Guide, should not a similar list of possible considerations be provided to outline the necessary scope of those documents also? 60 The footnotes to this paragraph refer to Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MoRPHE, 2006) as being an appropriate guidance document on how to prepare and check written schemes of investigation. However, it should be stressed that MoRPHE is specifically only applicable to English Heritage projects, and is not an industry standard document. It carries no weight with regards to the planning system and is not used by either local authorities or archaeological contractors in the archaeological mitigation process. This footnote should be altered to refer to the Management of Archaeological Projects (1991), and the relevant Institute for Archaeologists Guidance Papers, which are the industry standard. This would likely require a redrafting of text of this paragraph to make it relevant beyond its current narrow research-driven scope. 61 RESCUE is pleased to note that consideration of publication is given within the Practice Guide. However, it should be stressed that publication of the results of an archaeological investigation is not a luxury addition to the process that can potentially be circumvented, as the wording of this paragraph might be construed to suggest (“Where a local planning authority has required the completion and publication of a report...”). A report must ALWAYS be completed following the completion of a programme of archaeological work. 62

Similarly, copies of reports MUST be deposited with the relevant HER.

63 Deposition of an archaeological archive with a suitable repository is also an essential, not optional, part of the archaeological process. Whilst it remains the case that there are insufficient repositories to accept such archives, and such a commitment may be difficult in some areas of the country, this paucity of repositories should not water down the overall requirement for archiving. It should be strongly stated within this Guide that best practice dictates full deposition. Paragraphs 6163 therefore require slight re-drafting, to ensure that the mandatory requirements for reporting, archiving and deposition with the HER are stressed adequately. Given that the laws of ownership of archaeological material within the United Kingdom favour the landowner rather than the state, it might perhaps also be beneficial within this section to outline the public and academic benefits of deposition of recovered archaeological material with the appropriate repositories, and also to stress the need to sign over ownership of the material to the receiving body. 64 RESCUE is pleased to note the commitment towards the involvement of the public in investigative works that they may find of interest. It could perhaps be stressed more forcefully within the wording of this paragraph that there are measurable benefits for developers in furthering public access to sites, not only by physically allowing them to visit, but also in pursuing popular publication and seeking enhanced publicity in the local area and beyond. 65 It is of some concern that more consideration has not been applied to the issue of archaeological planning conditions within this Practice Guide. 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 often encompasses the entire timescale of a development, and might not be completed until 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 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

Help save the past for the future

assessment and evaluation, excavation, post-excavation analysis, 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. 66 The advice given in this section regarding unexpected discoveries is inadequate to cover this eventuality. It does not indicate how knowledge of unexpected discoveries is to be communicated to the local authority, or whether there is a mandatory requirement to report such finds on the part of the developer. Given the subsequent statements regarding the possibilities of English Heritage designating such discoveries or local authorities reviewing planning decisions, it seems unlikely that any sensible developer would report the discovery of any archaeological remains unless forced to. Similarly, it is inadequate to indicate that English Heritage would “wish” to be informed if discoveries meriting designation are unexpectedly found. Surely English Heritage “must” be consulted should such important material be revealed? As it stands, the advice in this paragraph envisages a utopian scenario of a voluntary reporting regime that simply won’t be practically applicable in reality. 69 The changes to a “heritage asset” envisaged in this paragraph are obviously based principally on concerns relating to listed buildings. In addition to the “usual” changes outlined here, archaeological sites can, and frequently are, totally removed by development. Battlefields and registered parks and gardens can have their significance severely diminished by development nearby, or by piecemeal removal of small elements of what might be a much larger site. An additional category needs to be added here – one of whole or partial loss of material fabric – to accommodate these types of scenarios adequately. The broad-brush approach of referring to the various elements of the historic environment under the clumsy heading of “heritage assets” is entirely unhelpful in attempting to clarify these issues – a fact perfectly illustrated by the entire absence of battlefields from any discussion in the ensuing paragraphs. These sites exist in a unique position, in that their physical importance as a heritage feature is usually heavily reliant on the historical rather than the archaeological record, and consequently, relevant protection regimes and management proposals are difficult to consider. It seems this difficulty has been perpetuated here with their omission from consideration. 84 This paragraph could include some useful references towards a requirement for professional archaeological recording in instances where internal finished are to be (or have been) removed and underlying structures worthy of note are revealed. 96 Denudation of large-scale sites due to inconsistency of repair and restoration works, and the piecemeal “nibbling away” of surviving historic features over the long term, is a considerable area of concern. We would prefer the issues raised in this paragraph to be given a much more significant profile. This matter should be addressed specifically by name within the policies of the PPS also. General Points The general overall language used in the document is often vague and open to too much interpretation. This will not be helpful when it comes to be used to support and implement the Governments policies as set out in the PPS. Furthermore, too many of the documents that are relevant for discussion in determining the response to this document 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 (to be produced “...in the near future.”), 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 Practice Guide text as being of relevance. This is

Help save the past for the future

far too extensive a list of missing supporting documentation to allow for 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 process should be deferred until at least all the relevant information is available for comment. Without the Heritage 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. Despite the detailed points raised in this response, RESCUE believes that the Practice Guide is a well-meaning and largely sympathetic document that requires simple alteration rather than fundamental redrafting. Its main problems lie in the inadequacy of the principles and documentation that underpin it – from the deeply flawed draft PPS15, through to the numerous “missing” guidance papers. The abandonment of the Heritage Bill by the Government demonstrates their lack of interest or commitment to the historic environment, and this is reflected within the so called “unified” approach, which simply confuses the various elements of the historic environment and ignores the special requirements for conservation, enhancement and management that each element demands. RESCUE would urge that this approach be abandoned at the earliest juncture, before its implementation causes significant and irreversible damage to the fabric of our historic environment.

RESCUE: October 2009

Help save the past for the future