Written evidence submitted by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists [NPP 34]

This evidence

Thank you for the opportunity to provide evidence to this inquiry. Written evidence submitted on behalf of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists is attached.

The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists

The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) is the leading professional body representing archaeologists working in the UK and overseas. CIfA promotes high professional standards and strong ethics in archaeological practice, to maximise the benefits that archaeologists bring to society, and provides a self-regulatory quality assurance framework for the sector and those it serves.

CIfA has over 3,250 members and more than 70 registered practices across the United Kingdom. Its members work in all branches of the discipline: heritage management, planning advice, excavation, finds and environmental study, buildings recording, underwater and aerial archaeology, museums, conservation, survey, research and development, teaching and liaison with the community, industry and the commercial and financial sectors.

Yours faithfully,

Tim Howard

CIfA Senior Policy Advisor

DCLG’s Consultation on National Planning Policy

Evidence of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA)

Executive Summary

1. CIfA strongly supports reforms to the planning system which facilitate the timely delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2. The Housing and Planning Bill, however, contains proposals in Part 6 automatically to grant permission in principle in relation to land identified on brownfield registers, which, without appropriate safeguards, are likely to reduce the level of protection for heritage assets and run contrary to the principles of the NPPF (including the presumption in favour of sustainable development).

3. These concerns are increased by the proposals in DCLG’s consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy effectively to introduce a presumption in favour of brownfield land (and to apply the same approach to ‘other small sites’).

4. While CIfA supports the desire to reuse appropriate brownfield land, it is necessary to recognise that such sites can be of particular environmental sensitivity on account of the heritage assets likely to be encountered there and ensure that the planning process affords appropriate weight to that consideration.

CIfA

5. The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) is the leading professional body representing archaeologists working in the UK and overseas. It promotes high professional standards and strong ethics in archaeological practice, to maximise the benefits that archaeologists bring to society, and provide a self-regulatory quality assurance framework for the sector and those it serves. CIfA has over 3,200 members and more than 70 registered practices across the United Kingdom.

Introduction

6. CIfA is an active member of The Heritage Alliance (THA) and THA Spatial Planning Advocacy Group and endorses the submission of the Group to this Committee dated 25 January 2016. In this submission CIfA concentrates on one issue, the introduction of a so-called ‘presumption’ in favour of brownfield land, which is of particular concern to the Institute.

The nature of archaeological evidence

7. Archaeological evidence (sites, features, artefacts and burials) is often difficult to detect, is very vulnerable to physical disturbance and is unpredictable in terms of its character and level of significance. Specialist surveys are therefore invariably required to identify the presence of archaeological evidence.  The techniques range from desk-based research to various methods of non-intrusive survey (e.g. geophysics, Lidar, aerial photography) and physical archaeological investigation (e.g. geoarchaeological survey, trial-trenching and test-pitting).   Where archaeological evidence has been identified, survey and physical intervention will also be required to determine its likely significance and from this the level of protection that it should be given via the planning process.

8. These characteristics of archaeological evidence have been encapsulated within the concept of archaeological interest, as defined in the NPPF. Archaeological interest goes further than historic interest (an interest in what is already known about past lives and events that may be illustrated by or associated with the asset), because it is the prospects for a future expert archaeological investigation to reveal more about our past which need protecting.  This embraces not only those assets (both designated and undesignated) that are currently known, but also those whose identity, nature or extent are as yet unknown, which is why pre-determination assessment and evaluation are key elements in the timely delivery of sustainable development.

9. Designated heritage assets (defined in the Glossary to the NPPF) are a very small proportion of the total archaeological resource; the majority of assets managed through the planning process are undesignated and may be of equivalent importance to those which are designated (see paragraph 139 of the NPPF). Previously unknown assets of this significance may be identified by archaeological assessment/evaluation of the type set out above during the plan-making or development management processes.

10. The NPPF provides at paragraph 128:

‘Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.’

Implications for archaeology of Permission in Principle for land identified in brownfield registers

11. If land identified for housing in brownfield registers is automatically to receive permission in principle, all pre-determination archaeological assessment and evaluation should be done prior to entry on the register. It is anticipated that Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) methodology will be used to identify such sites and that they will be identified, amongst other things, in accordance with the principles of the NPPF. Desk-based assessments and/or field evaluations are not routinely carried out when undertaking strategic housing land availability assessments[1]. Unless this matter is addressed sites are likely to be identified on brownfield registers, the development of which will cause significant harm to heritage assets and consequently be unsustainable.

A ‘presumption’ in favour of brownfield land

12. DCLG’s consultation on National Planning Policy suggests that what are proposed are ‘some specific changes to national planning policy, while maintaining the overall balance of policy which was carefully established following extensive consultation’ (paragraph 3 of the consultation document).

13. One of those changes relates to a ‘presumption’ in favour of brownfield land. Paragraph 22 provides:

‘To ensure that all possible opportunities for brownfield development are pursued, we propose to make clearer in national policy that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of using brownfield land for housing (in effect, a form of ‘presumption’ in favour of brownfield land).’

14. This proposal is couched in terms of clarification, but, in practice there is a real risk that this will be seen as increasing the weight which should be attached to the benefits of using brownfield land. Indeed, there is currently no ‘presumption’ in favour of brownfield land. If that is the case, it is hard to see how the ‘overall balance of balance’ will not change, given that, in any balancing exercise, altering the weight to be given to one factor implicitly alters the weight accorded to others.

15. This reinforces the fears that archaeological considerations will be overlooked or overridden when

(1) sites are entered on brownfield registers, thereby receiving permission in principle

(2) other brownfield sites are considered for development through the planning application process.

16. Similar concerns arise in relation to the proposal ‘to apply the approach described above for brownfield land to other small sites, provided they are within existing settlement boundaries and well-designed to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness’ (paragraph 24 of the consultation document). Many small sites within existing settlement boundaries contain heritage assets of archaeological interest.

17. None of the above seeks to challenge the desirability of developing appropriate brownfield sites, but rather highlights the need for appropriate safeguards to protect heritage assets with archaeological interest.

January 2016