Heritage White Paper

[drpeterwardle]

As I say it is the absence of a clear statement about none protected sites in the development control process that is the concern.

We are talking about a different PPG 16. PPG 16 uses the phrase nationally important sites scheduled or unscheduled. It says preservation in situ is the preferred option etc etc.

I think PPG 16 uses the phrase the key to protecting the vast majority of sites is the planning system.

So I ask where is the clear statement that the PPG 16 system of protection (or managed change) will be unaltered. AAI are being scrapped so what mechanism/system will be replacing the provision of the right to excavate them?

Peter

[vulpes]

In my view the white paper does nothing to undermine PPG16 and the presumption of preservation in situ for nationally important archaeological remains is unaffected. AAIs are being scrapped beacause it has been widely recognised due to minimal uptake that there is no need for this specific designation. Indeed it has been superceded by PPG16, in particular paragraph 15:

quote: Development plans should reconcile the need for development with the interests of ... archaeology. Detailed development plans... should include policies for the protection, enhancement and preservation of sites of archaeological interest ... The proposals map should define the areas and sites to which the policies and proposals apply. These policies will provide an important part of the framework for the consideration of individual proposals for development which affect archaeological remains etc...

Also Annex 3, para 20:

quote:As this PPG has been framed to deal with archaeological interests more comprehensively than the provision of AAIs allows, the Secretary of State has decided that no more AAIs should be designated until an assessment of the effectiveness of the PPG has been undertaken

The white paper as CK points out has the potential to further strengthen this process by giving extra weight to the designation of sites and areas of 'less than national importance'. The drafting of clearer criteria for the designation of sites on a 3 grade system will also provide clarity as to the importance of sites - assisting in decision making and giving curators some back up as to their position.

[Gog]

I've noticed much use of the word 'should' rather than 'must'.

Is this significant? Does it provide wiggle-room, or am I just being too picky (paranoid, even)?

[vulpes]

The 'shoulds' I take it are probably in the PPG16 quote above! Yes they do provide 'wiggle room' and that because it is guidance not law.

[Gog]

Thanks vulpes.

Hopefuuly one day we'll have some 'musts'!

[historic building]

I have spent quite a while reading this and on the whole, for what it is, it does not seem too bad.
- Statutory HERs
- capacity building for local authorities
- public involvement
- removal of class consents

It is a white paper so obviously is subject to change and the text of the statute, whenever it appears, is the important bit. As it stands, and for what it is, it is a move in the right direction.

One thing which will be fun is the local lists which may actually have some meaning. The problems this will cause will be amazing.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by troll Whilst the White paper is rather large, ungainly and repetitive prompting long-slow reads...can I suggest perhaps coming up with a pros and cons listing here?

Can't promise a pros and cons list Troll, but The Archaeology Forum have come up with a precis of the main points of the document which was posted on Britarch yesterday by Gill Chitty.

As I am possibly the only person left in Britain who is still signed into Britarch I am providing a link to read the mail through the precis section. Maybe our host could encourage the IFA (part of the Archaeology Forum) to post the same mail to BAJR.



http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadm...S=&P=40918

[1man1desk]

Posted by Dr Peter Wardle:

quotePG16 protected all sites from development not those that were designated. PPG 16 to a degree also protects unknown sites and sites that are poorly understood - the evaluation.

PPG 16 explicitly does not protect any archaeological sites from development.

SAMs are already protected by law. PPG 16 says that local authorities ought to create policies that treat other nationally-important sites (i.e. a small minority of archaeological sites)in a similar way to SAMs in the planning process.

As for other sites, all PPG 16 does is state that the desirability of their preservation is a material factor (amongst others) in determining planning applications, and advises local authorities to create policies that reflect this desirability.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

yup same for scotland shire too. It can be a bit of a shock to people when they find we have no statuatory powers and can only advise council planning depts who can (and do) ignore advice) - its all how you say/ask for it.



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[BAJR Host]

PRESS RELEASE 8 March 2007
HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
The Archaeology Forum (TAF) welcomes the programme of radical reforms set out in the Heritage Protection White Paper published today and the government's commitment to placing the historic environment at the heart of an effective planning system.
There is a strong consensus of support from archaeological bodies for the White Paper's proposals. It is nearly 30 years since the last legislation to protect archaeology was introduced. The present systems for protecting the heritage have developed in a piecemeal fashion and are complex, inefficient to operate, lacking the transparency and accountability that a credible, modern system should provide.
"The White Paper is welcomed as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernise the heritage protection system, to make it more open and more inclusive", said Peter Hinton, TAF's Convenor, " We are pleased to see its radical and reforming approach and are expecting government to honour its commitment to streamlining without weakening the mechanisms that protect some of the most important parts of our heritage".
Delivery of the ambitious programme of reforms will depend for its success on a strong partnership between the Government, English Heritage, Cadw and the heritage sector. We note that local government in particular will have an important, central role in the new unified system of consents, with new responsibilities. Resources to reflect this enhanced role will be essential for effective delivery of the reforms at local level and for implementation in English Heritage. The need for these resources was headlined as the highest priority in Valuing Our Heritage, the sector's case for funding to Government ahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review.
In particular TAF welcomes the proposals to
* unify the listing of buildings, scheduling of monuments, registration of parks, gardens and battlefields into a single designation regime, including World Heritage Sites
* expand designation to include the sites of early human activity without structures
* integrate Listed Building and Scheduled Monument consents into a single, streamlined heritage consent system, determined at local level
* enhance local historic environment services by introducing a statutory requirement for local authorities to have access to Historic Environment Records
* work towards an effective UK-wide marine heritage protection system, including a duty for the Receiver of Wreck to report marine heritage assets to the relevant heritage authorities
* introduce interim protection to sites and structures while they are being considered for designation.
We will be looking closely at the proposals for enhancing protection of archaeological sites under cultivation. TAF also looks forward to responding to the proposed changes for Conservation Areas and to safeguarding the level of protection for our most valued and sensitive historic areas. Looking ahead, there is important work to do to prepare for effective implementation of the White Paper proposals. The Archaeology Forum urges that progress should be made with other reforms, in advance of the proposed legislation, which will pave the way for its successful implementation. All can take place before the reforms of legislation, once the key principles are agreed, and should not be delayed.
* improvements to existing planning policy guidance for archaeology to * define archaeological resources more comprehensively, 1 confirm that it is reasonable for the planning process to require opportunities for public participation, 2 confirm that it is reasonable, where appropriate, to require commercial work to be conducted by accredited historic environment professionals 3 ensure proper provision for archiving and publishing completed excavations.
* clear government guidance on the functions that a local authority historic environment service should provide, based on proposals by the Institute of Field Archaeologists, Institute of Historic Building Conservation and the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers
* a programme of training and capacity building, involving English Heritage, Cadw, local authorities and the professional associations, to equip historic environment professionals with the skills and resources they need to deliver reformed services to the standard the public deserves
Notes to editors
1. 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.
Contacts
Peter Hinton, Chief Executive, Institute of Field Archaeologists Tel 0118 378 6446; Fax 0118 378 6448; [log in to unmask]
Mike Heyworth, Director, Council for British Archaeology Tel 01904 671417; Fax 01904 671384; [log in to unmask]
Stewart Bryant, Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers UK Tel: 01992 555244; Fax 01992 555251


"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu