Updated: 21 June, 2005
© RESCUE

A response to 'Protecting our Historic Environment: Making the system work better by RESCUE:
The British Archaeological Trust

RESCUE welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposals in the 'Protecting our Historic Environment' document and notes that the majority appear to be of great potential value in rationalising the current situation and in enhancing protection for the Historic Environment. We note, however, that much will depend upon the drafting of legislation, consequential orders or regulations and final policy statements.

Before responding to the specific questions posed in the document, a number of additional points have to be made.

RESCUE is concerned that Ecclesiastical Exemption is not a full part of the document (paragraph 14); the ongoing destruction of cemeteries and the lack of archaeological input into their excavation and full scientific study is leading to a massive loss in data pertaining to historical demography, patterns of disease and illness, palaeopathology and the nature of burial rites and practices. This loss of information requires urgent action if it is to be stopped.

RESCUE welcomes the plans to remove some of the exemptions currently enjoyed by the Crown in respect of scheduled monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas and hopes that these will be broad in their scope (paragraph 15).

RESCUE also welcomes the implication (in paragraphs 16-18) that co-operation between the DCMS and the ODPM will improve. As the case of the St. Pancras cemetery demonstrates, a lack of communication and mutual understanding between government departments can lead to archaeologically catastrophic results when the principles promoted by one department of government are ignored or overlooked by another.

RESCUE is concerned that a narrow definition of 'economic use' (paragraph 20) overlooks the contribution that the features of the Historic Environment makes to local and regional distinctiveness, to the tourist industry and to education at all levels. Such factors should be a major consideration in making judgements regarding the Historic Environment and its significance. With reference to this, RESCUE welcomes the broader definition of value implied in paragraphs 35 and 36, but notes that he process of consultation should be wide enough and comprehensive enough to include the many specialist groups who have views on specific types of site, building or monument.

Responses to the questions for consultation

Q1.1 Would a unified List for England improve existing arrangements?

RESCUE welcomes the proposal for a unified List. RESCUE has long argued that the present system is unclear and confusing, particularly for the general public and the owners of historic buildings or monuments. Furthermore, it incorporates a host of anomalies particularly in provisions for enforcement, repair or restitution and penalties. One detailed example is the way that buildings which are both scheduled and listed are less well protected than those which are only listed. This is because the weaker provisions and lesser penalties associated with scheduling then apply. We take it as certain that the stronger penalties and, where appropriate, the availability of enforcement, stop and repair notices will apply across the whole combined list. We also assume that the duty in Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act will apply to the unified list.

RESCUE would point out that there are a number of differences between the various types of designation that will have to be addressed. These include:

• the different basis of scheduling and listing; the former is confined to sites of national importance while the latter is a blanket activity. If this is not addressed lay people and even decision makers may equate non-scheduled archaeological sites with unlisted buildings whereas much revealed only on the sites and monuments record will be as significant as any Grade II listed building. It is vital that this anomaly be addressed. We suggest an appreciable expansion of scheduling, more statutory recognition for site and monument records, perhaps some review of Grade II buildings and a campaign to educate.

• the regime for exemptions or automatic consents; this is far more extensive for monuments than for buildings. We would urge the need for a thorough review and re-think of the Class Consents Order and draw attention to the recent English Heritage initiative 'Ripping up History' with reference to plough damage.

Q1.2 Is a power at national level to designate areas of historic importance necessary or useful? What would it add to the present conservation area designation?  What  issues would need to be resolved?

The power already exists to designate Areas of Archaeological Importance under the 1979 Act, but thus has, to date been underused which RESCUE sees as regrettable. This power could usefully be extended to identify and protect significant rural and urban historic landscapes where the degree of definition and protection offered by full scheduling would be onerous.

Q2.1 Are the suggested safeguards sufficient to allow English Heritage to become responsible for maintaining the List?

RESCUE supports the transfer of responsibility for maintaining the 'List' to English Heritage, with the suggested safeguards, as a sensible rationalisation of the system.

Q2.2 What other options might there be? For example, might English Heritage establish some form of independent committee to make the designation decisions? How would CABE's advice on post-war buildings be factored in?

It is RESCUE's opinion that, rather than introducing quangos within quangos, the system within English Heritage should be made more transparent and should involve consultation with which ever specialist bodies might be appropriate. The separate treatment of post-war buildings is no longer appropriate.

Q3 What criteria should be used to determine what item should be placed on the List?

RESCUE believes that at the point of designation the principal criterion should be historic significance, not current economic or management considerations. The operation consent processes and the planning system allows this to be weighed against other factors. In practice it is often much more difficult to argue the national significance and make a case for the full preservation of an archaeological site under PPG16 if it is not scheduled.

Q4.1 Should the present gradings at 1, II* and II be retained?

Listed buildings and registered gardens are currently graded I, II* and II. Scheduled Ancient Monuments and battlefields are ungraded. RESCUE believes that uniformity is necessary and that, as grading is vital for buildings consideration is needed on how to extend it to monuments and landscapes. We would suggest a simple 3 stage list ( A, B and C or 1, 2 and 3) rather than the complication of stars. RESCUE considers that all existing Scheduled Ancient Monuments should be treated as the equivalent of the highest grade until the range of archaeological sites designated is much increased (see also Q1.1).

Q4.2 Should some of the items at grade II move onto local lists? What safeguards would be needed?

The removal of grade II buildings to a local list would appear to be a downgrading of their significance and so a retrograde step. RESCUE would not, in general, support this apparent downgrading.

Q5.1 Would a requirement for statements of significance help to establish for owners and the local authority what was important to conserve? How could the statements take account of the inevitable changes in values over time?

RESCUE supports the idea of statements of significance; such a move will add to the clarity of the process which will in turn lend it greater legitimacy and validity. For similar reasons RESCUE would advocate that reasons for not listing a particular site, monument or area should also be drawn up and publicised.

Q5.2  What should be the process for drawing up statements of significance for existing listings?

RESCUE believes that widespread consultation is the key to the establishment of trust in any new or extensively revised system. The Historic Environment is a uniquely diverse resource and as such attracts many different interest groups. The process of listing should therefore draw upon the wide expertise represented by the many groups concerned with aspects of the Historic Environment and this should be recognised through a process of consultation designed to facilitate communication and debate.

More specifically on the points raised in paragraph 43, RESCUE acknowledges that there is a resource problem with regard to the creation of statements of significance across the board. It may be more useful to invest in re-survey only where information is known to be poor or lacking. There is a good case for drawing up statements at the point where change is proposed. An analogous scheme is already in widespread use in the form of the common practice of commissioning archaeological desktop assessments in advance of development, and as such would not cause significant delays to redevelopment, given that the infrastructure, in the form of commercial archaeological units with experience in building surveying and the assessment of landscapes and townscapes, is already in existence.

Q5.3 Should maps take the place of the present definition based on curtilage?

The use of detailed maps to define protected areas is a useful one, particularly as GIS becomes a standard tool for greater efficiency in planning and development control and should help in improving the clarity of the situation, to the benefit of all concerned.

Q6.1 Should the listing process become open and who should be consulted on an application?

RESCUE welcomes a greater degree of transparency in the listing process although we note that this must be subject to the safeguards to prevent destruction during the discussion stage. The inclusion of a log book detailing the nature and significance of any historic asset within a seller's pack is an excellent idea. We suggest that consideration is also given to the universal inclusion of site plans so that it is clear which areas are covered as this has, on occasion, generated argument, appeals and even litigation with listed buildings. RESCUE agrees with the idea of extensive local consultation as suggested in paragraph 45.

Q6.2 Might there be different requirements for private properties which are lived in?

RESCUE does not support the idea of different requirements according to the use of the building. The Historic Environment consists of a limited number of irreplaceable assets which should not be sacrificed to short term considerations.

Q6.3 Should protection be applied during the period when listing is under consideration?

It is absolutely essential that sites, monuments and buildings all receive protection during the period when their status is under consideration. The alternative leaves demolition or destruction as a viable alternative for landowners or developers whose primary interest is in the site as a locus for new development rather than as a part of the Historic Environment.

Q7.1 Should there be a right of appeal? In what circumstances would a right of appeal be justified?

While a right of appeal would seem to be an aspect of natural justice, the unique and irreplaceable nature of the historic environment has to be the over-riding concern where destruction or potentially unsympathetic conversion / renovation is concerned.

Q7.2 Should the suggested right of appeal apply just to owners or to other interested parties as well?

Q8.1 What kind of consent regime will be most appropriate for a unified List? Should English Heritage seek to define individually at the time of listing what works will or will not require consent or should only generic rules be applied?

RESCUE believes that as part of a unified 'List' system all applications for consent would have to be handled initially by local authorities; however the vast majority of scheduled monument applications would require advice from English Heritage.  It is not realistic to try to predict future works at the time of designation and in view of this, only generic rules should be defined.

Q8.2 What generic arrangements would be suitable for historic areas?

Formal consent should be required for the demolition of any man-made structure, agricultural permitted developments and afforestation. 

Q9.1 How feasible are management agreements as an alternative to statutory consents and in what circumstances could they be most useful? What would be the essential components of such agreements?

Subject to details on publicity, registration etc, RESCUE sees no objection to the use of management agreements as a tool in conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment in certain situations. Indeed it seems a better method in those situations where the key to protection is an ongoing management regime rather than the control of a single act of operational development. The obvious case will be with historic parks and gardens but it could also be a useful tool with land used for agriculture or forestry.

Q9.2 What safeguards are needed to ensure openness and rigour?

Current provision within English Heritage for the regular monitoring of all scheduled monuments (the Field Monuments Warden system) is very poor, with part-time, poorly paid and undervalued staff. Such staff will be essential in any future system and will need appropriate resourcing. Such staff have, potentially, a very valuable role in working with local communities to enhance the appreciation of the historic environment, in improving access for a variety of groups within society and communicating local views to regional and national bodies.

Q10 Should the Government provide for joint agreements covering the natural and historic environment (such as are now available under agri-environment schemes) to be recognised in statute as an alternative to consent requirements?

Answers to Q9 are also applicable here.

Q11 How can the national interest in protecting important archaeological sites best be reconciled with the needs of  farmers?

The issue of Class Consents is one which has been of central concern to RESCUE for a number of years and has recently been recognised by English Heritage in the form of the 'Ripping up History' initiative. Scheduling affects a tiny percentage of the agricultural landscape and, usually, a very small part of an individual landholding. If destruction by ploughing continues to be allowed on designated sites it will be difficult to argue the need for changes of management in other areas of the rural historic landscape.

Q12 What would be the most helpful ways within the new Entry Level and Higher Tier schemes of encouraging farmers to protect the historic environment?

Successful farming and conservation schemes will rely on good local information (with the S.M.R.s/H.E.R.s as a crucial tool) and advice from appropriately trained staff. There may be a role for an enhanced and better resourced body of full time Field Monument Wardens here.

Q13 What planning guidance on protection of the local historic environment would be of most value to local residents, authorities and developers?

Local communities need better access to information and advice about the local historic environment. This can be provided by well-resourced S.M.R.s/H.E.R.s and specialist staff who can interpret the data. At present, the majority of S.M.R.s / H.E.R.s cannot undertake to provide such information and advice on a regular basis owing to a chronic lack of resources.

Q14 What would be the most productive way of encouraging local authorities to undertake conservation area appraisals? What might be done to encourage them to set out bolder policies for enhancing rather than just preserving their conservation areas?

The provision of adequate resources is essential - a recent survey has shown that Conservation Officers enjoy very low status and inadequate staffing levels are the norm. This situation requires rectification if staff are to be empowered and enabled to carry out their jobs efficiently and successfully. Some form of compulsion will most probably be necessary if local authorities are to begin taking their responsibilities towards conservation areas seriously.

Q15 Should there be a mechanism for preventing demolition of locally listed buildings without consent?  Should this be linked to development proposals? What safeguards would be needed to ensure the quality of local lists?

RESCUE believes that it is essential that buildings and other sites of local and regional significance should be accorded adequate protection and that this should certainly include a mechanism for preventing demolition or destruction without consent. Buildings may have a local significance that is not apparent to those from outside the immediate locality and a role for local community and amenity groups is essential here. This is particularly relevant where the redevelopment of urban sites is concerned; valued buildings can all too easily be demolished or unsympathetically converted to satisfy the demands of short term financial gain while the views of the local community are ignored. Consultation is a key factor here and local groups and organisations may have a valuable role to play in the uses made of sites and buildings in particular localities (see paragraph 64). RESCUE believes that there is a strong case for making all demolition subject to planning consent - current methods of retrieving foundation materials for example can do extensive damage to archaeological deposits which can only be protected through PPG16.

Q16 How could an effective sub-regional team be created?  Should it be primarily about developing guidance and sharing best practice or about facilitating casework and providing support to local authorities?  What would be the benefits and downsides?

For the proposed system to work and yield the advantages it promises it will demand a considerable initial investment and appreciable running costs. These must be provided by central government if they are not available from local resources. Expertise, a vital resource is also in short supply. Recent surveys have revealed a shortage of conservation officers and archaeological expertise is even scarcer. RESCUE has several times made representations about job losses (which are also tangible losses in terms of experience and local knowledge) as local authority and museum budgets have been squeezed. The loss of local archaeological units as a consequence of the competitive tendering regime has led to a significant loss in local knowledge and understanding. For the foreseeable future expertise will have to be pooled and we would suggest that this is done at sub-regional level as detailed knowledge of an area is vital whether it is in the understanding of local vernacular architecture for conservation or patterns of archaeological sites in an area.

Sites and Monuments Records or Historic Environment Records and the knowledge and experience embodied in their staffs must form a core element in any sub-regional or regional team and the records should perhaps form the basis upon which unified local lists can be created. Enhanced funding, which should follow the placing of S.M.R./H.E.R. on a statutory basis, is essential if staff are to be given the opportunity to develop and pass on their skills in particular areas. A mechanism, backed by appropriate funding, for the S.M.R./H.E.R. staff to call upon the knowledge and experience of specialists in particular subjects and areas is seen as essential. In the past such knowledge was available through local archaeological units and museums, but the creation of the contract-tender system over the last twelve years and the run-down in staffing at local and regional museums has meant that such expertise is now located in the private sector and access to this must be facilitated appropriately.

Q17 What are the important skill gaps and what action would be most effective to bring about swift change?

The heritage and historic environment sector includes individuals and groups who possess a vast body of knowledge pertaining to the human history of Britain from the early Palaeolithic period to the twentieth century and relates to a wide range of aspects within this vast span of time (the human impact on the natural environment, the technical and social history of industry, vernacular and elite architecture, urban and rural history, demography and population change, the history of disease, cultural history and so on). It is impossible for any one individual to have a grasp of all of these areas and there is an overriding need for those responsible for local S.M.R.s/H.E.R.s to have access to those who can best advise upon particular issues. At present there is no formal mechanism for such access and this needs to be corrected at the earliest opportunity.