Updated: 13 October, 2006
© RESCUE

Validation of planning applications

Comments by RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

15A Bull Plain
Hertford
SG14 1DX

www.rescue-archaeology.freeserve.co.uk
rescue@rescue-archaeology.freeserve.co.uk

FAO Janet Emery
Department for Communities and Local Government
4/H3 Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU

Introduction

RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the discussion of ways in which the planning system may be made more efficient. We comment on these proposals from the point of view of an organisation which campaigns to maintain the position of archaeology as a material consideration within the planning system and a vital part of the cultural and historic environment. Since the inception of the PPG 15 / PPG 16 regime in England (and the equivalent in other parts of the United Kingdom ), the sums of money entering archaeology through the process of developer funding have made a significant difference to our understanding of the archaeology and history of Britain . While RESCUE still has serious reservations about the adequacy of the PPG 15 / PPG 16 system in may respects (not least its lack of legal enforceability and the many loopholes which may be exploited by the development industry), we are convinced that it is essential that archaeology should occupy a place at the heart of the planning system in order that neither archaeology nor the processes of development, regeneration and renewal are disadvantaged by a lack of mutual understanding or a failure to recognise the importance that archaeology enjoys in the cultural life of the nation.

We have noted a lack of mutual communication within government regarding the place, purpose and role of archaeology and would urge that opinions on this document are sought from the DCMS and their principal advisors on heritage matters CADW, English Heritage and Historic Scotland.

Bearing these matters in mind, we now turn to the questions posed in the document:

1. Do these proposals make it clear what makes an application ‘valid'?

No comment

2. Should they be applied to both the planning application regulations and the listed building and conservation area regulations?

No comment

3. Should the proposals also apply to Minerals Applications given their exclusion from the Standard Application Form project at present?

No comment

4. Do they provide for the correct balance between the need for standardisation and consistency and the need for local flexibility and differences in policy?

The proposals fail to take into account the nature of archaeological remains. It is suggested in the document that a specified set of criteria will be sufficient to allow professional planning officers to make a judgement as to whether or not an application has fulfilled its obligation to supply the correct information. This implies that we are currently in the position of full understanding of the archaeological resource of the country and are able to confidently designate areas and sites of threat, potential and negativity, to enable swift value judgements to be made. This is simply and unfortunately not the case. The survival of evidence pertaining to past human activity is unpredictable, and it is important to maintain as much flexibility within planning regimes as possible, in order to enable professional archaeological planning staff to perform their specialist role properly and assess each and every application on its own merits. In a very few cases, development on a particular site will be unacceptable due to the nature of the archaeological assets on the site. In many more (the overwhelming majority), development will be acceptable after the due process of archaeological evaluation, excavation and/or survey and the analysis of the records and materials made and recovered has been completed. Such professional judgements can also subject to additional non-archaeological concerns such as the nature of the proposed development, which have an important bearing on the decision-making process, and it may be the case that even when a proposal for development affects an area of extreme archaeological sensitivity, the implications for the site are either manageable or minimal, given the application of appropriate archaeological techniques. It may also be the case that even when there is no known site of archaeological significance within a development area, past research suggests that the general area is of a sufficiently high potential to warrant archaeological investigations in advance of development. The validation proposals do not include this eventuality but instead deal only with the presence of known sites. Simple standardisation of procedures does not address this issue, or indeed the wider complexity of past human occupation patterns. It is therefore inappropriate to impose such a structure on the archaeological resource.

By implication, these proposals assume that the database of archaeological finds, features and sites for any given area (the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) or Historic Environment Record (HER) which is the primary tool by which archaeological designations are made), would be up-to-date enough to be able to provide clear and current information to inform the process adequately. For the majority of England at least, SMR's and HER's are under-resourced and over subscribed, with (in some cases) extensive backlogs. Without serious investment, these databases could not inform a blanket policy such as is outlined in these proposals. RESCUE would argue for a flexible and locally responsive system which will allow for the full professional consideration of applications from an archaeological perspective prior to planning decisions being taken.

5. Does the requirement to consult and publish their checklists ensure that local planning authorities will act reasonably in relation to the information requested? Will this provide clearer guidance and support for applicants?

6. Do these proposals enable local planning authorities to request all the information needed to determine an application at an early stage?

No they do not, for the reasons outlined in response to question 4. There are no criteria outlined whereby a local authority could request preliminary archaeological works in areas of known archaeological potential (extensive rural landscapes, historic town centres etc.), without the presence of known sites nearby to support the request.

7. Will the proposals simplify the process of validating a planning application?

With regard to the archaeological resource, the proposals lack the flexibility to allow professionals to adequately assess the nature of the development-led threat to archaeological sites and landscapes. Given the pressure to meet deadlines and the overriding importance placed on the statistics of having done so, it is more likely that in this scenario the current proposals will actually result in poorly-informed decisions being made at prematurely early stages in the planning process, potentially by under-qualified staff. This will inevitably lead to the loss of archaeological sites and finds. It may also have the effect of disrupting development through the discovery of archaeological remains of national (or regional) significance during ground preparation or the early stages of building work. RESCUE believes that this situation will benefit no one; archaeologists and the public will be the overall losers and in the short to medium term developers may risk delays on site as urgent ‘salvage' operations are mounted to recover archaeological data. We would argue for that a system of assessment and evaluation, followed where necessary by full excavation, analysis and publication provides a better, more organised and rational approach than that proposed which may result in the type of spectacle that was familiar in the later 1960s and early 1970s with the costly disruption to building work and the loss of archaeological data on a massive scale.

8. Do these proposals alter the negotiating position between local planning authorities and applicants for the better or for the worse?

Given the points discussed above, the lack of flexibility is almost certainly going to alter the negotiating position of local planning authorities with applicants for the worse. Local planning authorities will be unable to assess each application on its own particular merits, and will be forced to apply blanket criteria to diverse and unrelated archaeological sites. The developer will be placed in the position of being able to make value judgements regarding the presence or importance of archaeological remains (or the apparent lack of them) on his own site. It seems unlikely that this will result in a more satisfactory system than exists at present (even given the manifest inadequacies of the present system) and could well lead to a less adequate system more prone to disruption from factors that could have been foreseen and dealt with to the satisfaction of all parties under a more sensitive and locally responsive system.

9. Are there any extra requirements which should be included in DCLG guidance beyond those listed in Annex C? Should any of the requirements in Annex C be updated or changed?

See previous comments. The requirement in Annex C regarding Historical, Archaeological Features and Scheduled Ancient Monuments , makes no mention of PPG16 (Archaeology and Planning). This is a profoundly worrying omission from the proposals as PPG 16 lies at the heart of the system established in 1990/1. RESCUE believes that PPG 16 should be explicitly included in this section as it covers matters which are not covered by PPG 15. Without such inclusion, this document does not represent a valid or useful contribution to the development or improvement of the planning system at the national level.

10. Should DCLG produce a model checklist of requirements which should accompany applications in specific areas/circumstances? Which policy requirements should be highlighted in this way?

The provisions of PPG 15 and PPG 16 should be included in any model checklist as, even given their well known inadequacies they represent the structure within which archaeology currently operates within England .

11. Does the proposed timetable seem reasonable?

Given the absence of an adequate recognition of archaeology within the present document, RESCUE believes that there are important matters to be discussed which should involve all of the relevant heritage organisations; CADW, English Heritage, Historic Scotland, the Council for British Archaeology (CBA), the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (ALGAO), RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust, Heritage Link and The Archaeology Forum.

Whether this can be achieved within the proposed timescale is not a matter that RESCUE can advise upon but must be determined after due consideration by the DCLG and their archaeological advisors.

RESCUE will be happy to contribute further to this important debate, should this be thought appropriate.