Memorandum submitted by the Archaeology
Forum
1. The Archaeology Forum (TAF) is a grouping
of the key, non-governmental organisations concerned with archaeology
in the UK. Its members include the Association of Local Government
Archaeological Officers UK, the Council for British Archaeology,
the Institute of Conservation, the Institute of Field Archaeologists,
the Institute of Historic Building Conservation, the National
Trust, the National Trust for Scotland, Rescue, the Society of
Antiquaries of London, the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,
the Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit Managers, and the
Society of Museum Archaeologists UK.
2. This evidence is based on contributions
from member organisations with an overview of archaeological policy
and practice in England and Wales. We note that there are a number
of key areas where secondary legislation and statutory guidance
has yet to be drafted and look forward to the opportunity to comment
on these in detail in due course.
Forum members warmly welcome the draft Bill
and its proposals which we believe will create a more effective,
coherent and open system for heritage protection. The Archaeology
Forum is planning a seminar on the proposals in the autumn at
the Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House. This will be an
opportunity for the archaeological community to discuss the details
of the draft Bill and to consider the implications of its implementation.
The memorandum presented here addresses key
issues of principle and policy which we wish to draw to the Committee's
attention in order to strengthen the implementation and benefits
of the reforms. In particular the Forum commends the submissions
made by the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers:
England (ALGAO:E), by the Council for British Archaeology (CBA)
and by the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA).
3. SUMMARY OF
EVIDENCE TO
COMMITTEE
3.1 Overall aims and scope of the draft
Bill:
— need for a Planning Policy Statement
for the Historic Environment;
— clarification on provision for
Heritage Protection in Wales; and
— Priority Reform of Class Consents.
3.2 ESTIMATE
OF COSTS
AND BENEFITS
SET OUT
IN THE
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
— resources for implementation
in local authorities; and
— resources for implementation
in English Heritage.
3.3 Staffing and skill levels needed for
effective implementation:
— importance of expert advice
and professional standards.
4. OVERALL AIMS
AND SCOPE
OF THE
DRAFT BILL
4.1 The Archaeology Forum is pleased to
have the opportunity to comment on the ambitious programme of
reforms set out in the draft Heritage Protection Bill. Our organisations
strongly welcome these as significant new measures for the protection
and enhancement of the historic environment. In particular, we
welcome the commitment made by successive ministers to ensuring
there will be no reduction in the overall protection for the historic
environment as a result of this process.
New Planning Policy Statement for the Historic
Environment in England
4.2 One of the aims of the reform process
has been to support sustainable communities by putting the historic
environment at the heart of an effective planning system. Protection
of the historic environment should be a key material consideration
in planning policy and TAF members consider that the preparation
of a Planning Policy Statement for the Historic Environment to
accompany the new legislation will be of the highest importance.
This will be essential to bring together the range of primary
and secondary legislation and statutory instruments that will
result from the reforms and to provide a coherent re-statement
of the changes of policy, approach, criteria and terminology that
will be integrated in the unified system for heritage protection.
A new PPS will also be important as a signal of cross Departmental
endorsement by DCLG of the measures introduced by DCMS, and would
replace the existing Planning Policy Guidance—PPG16 (1990)
and PPG 15 (1992)—both of which are overdue for revision.
4.3 TAF urges the Committee to voice its
support, as a matter of high priority, for joint work by DCMS
and DCLG on development of a new Planning Policy Statement for
the Historic Environment to be published in conjunction with the
implementation of the new legislation
Heritage Protection in Wales
4.4 The arrangements proposed for Wales
appear to perpetuate some fragmentation of consent procedures
between Welsh Assembly Government (WAG)/Cadw and local authorities,
unlike the fully integrated system proposed in England. Similarly
clarification is still required on the relationships between local
planning authorities, the Welsh Archaeological Trusts and Cadw/WAG
on provision and maintenance of historic environment services
including Historic Environment Records (HERs); and on the resources
that will be available to deliver proposed reforms. No Draft Guidance
has been issued for HERs in Wales, as it has been for England.
While DCMS has undertaken to address the costs of implementing
new duties for local authorities in England, no equivalent undertakings
have been made in Wales. As in England, new planning policy guidance
for the historic environment in Wales will be essential.
4.5 TAF requests that the Committee inquire
into the parity of arrangements for England and Wales set out
in the Bill and seek a statement from WAG /Cadw about their assessment
of resource needs and proposals for secondary legislation and
guidance.
Reform of Class Consents (Ancient Monuments (Class
Consents) Order 1994)
4.6 In the Heritage White Paper, DCMS undertook
to revoke the section of Class 1 Consent relating to agriculture
and to "reform the current system on a management agreement
approach". The Forum has argued strongly for some years for
priority to be given to removing designated sites from the damaging
effects of continuing cultivation where this impacts on buried
archaeological remains. DCMS has considered the evidence for this
and finds the argument for reform convincing but the mechanisms
by which this will be achieved remain unclear. We wish to draw
the Committee's attention to the need for an urgent resolution
to this situation where some of the most sensitive protected archaeological
sites are still subject to a level of unnecessary damage on a
regular basis.
4.7 The Forum recommends that the Committee
ask for details of how it is envisaged that the "management
agreement" approach would be introduced and resourced to
overcome the obstacles that have previously hampered revocation
of Class 1 Consent; and that urgent attention be given to preparation
for withdrawal of Class I Consents for agricultural activities.
Areas of Archaeological Importance (AAIs)
4.8 The controls of Part II of the 1979
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act have not been included
in the draft Bill. In the five historic centres which are currently
designated, the operation of current planning guidance provides
an alternative mechanism to ensure that the historic environment
is considered in the development control process. However, loss
of the AAI designation is still viewed as likely to reduce the
level of protection from some potentially damaging aspects of
permitted development, such as utilities and communications infrastructure
and residential microgeneration schemes. There has been no assessment,
as far as Forum members are aware, of the potential reduction
in protection that would result or discussion of its possible
effect with the relevant local authorities.
4.9 The Forum recommends that the Committee
inquire into the steps taken by English Heritage and DCMS to assess
the possible impacts of removing AAI designation and the alternative
mechanisms that might be introduced to ensure there is no reduction
in protection in those important historic city centres.
5. ESTIMATE OF
COSTS AND
BENEFITS SET
OUT IN
THE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
Resources for implementation in local authorities
5.1 TAF commends to the Committee the submissions
made by ALGAO England, CBA and IFA which outline concerns that
we have as an archaeological community about the resourcing of
new integrated historic environment services in local authorities.
5.2 While we agree that the costs of devolving
consent procedures for scheduled ancient monuments to local authorities
may not have a significant effect on resources, there are other
important areas that should be considered more closely. We believe
that the estimates for HER services in the Impact Assessment may
underestimate the real costs of meeting the requirements of the
recently published DCMS Draft Guidance on HERS. It would be valuable
if the basis on which these estimates were prepared could be publicly
available. As the impact assessment recognises, there will also
be a significant short-term need for investment in new skills
and to embed the new procedures in local authority e-planning
systems. The Forum welcomes DCMS commitment to fund local authorities'
additional administrative needs and the undertakings that English
Heritage has given to support necessary capacity building in the
sector but believes this should be based on a clearer understanding
of the requirements for implementation and establishing the new
system.
Resources for implementation in English Heritage
5.3 English Heritage has stated that it
has secured an appropriate level of resources for preparation
to implement the new system in the period up to the end of 2010-11.
Once the new system of designation is introduced, however, it
is anticipated that there will continue to be greater `up front'
costs before efficiency savings start to flow from the new system.
These will include investment in developing new Heritage Partnership
Agreements; in dealing with the issues that will inevitably arise
in dealing with the half million "legacy designations"
that will be transferred to the new Register; and potentially
a flood of new applications for designation, with a much higher
level of general public engagement and interest, under the new
criteria for registration of heritage assets.
5.4 The Forum suggests the Committee inquire
whether DCMS and English Heritage are satisfied that
— the resources available for
HER services and for capacity building in local authority services
are sufficient for the purpose of preparing for implementation
of the new system and on what basis that need has been assessed;
and
— the resources likely to be required
by English Heritage for effective implementation and upfront costs
after 2010-11 have been quantified, and those longer term needs
considered with DCMS.
6. STAFFING AND
SKILL LEVELS
NEEDED FOR
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 The need for local authorities to obtain
and take into account expert advice in considering heritage asset
consent applications is explicitly recognised in the draft Bill.
The Forum wishes to emphasise the importance of this advice being
provided by appropriately qualified professionals with relevant
expertise working to agreed standards. This requirement should
be included formally in the Bill or in relevant statutory guidance.
6.2 The Forum emphasises to the Committee
the importance of provisions in the Bill or in supporting Guidance
to ensure that local authorities have access to appropriate professional
advice and expertise on the historic environment in discharging
their duties under the new system for heritage protection.
June 2008
| 
