Written evidence submitted by the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (ALGAO) [LEG 41]

ALGAO is the UK-wide body that represents archaeology in local government. Our members include authorities across England, Scotland and Wales and include all types of authority; so two tier, unitary, national parks, external services etc., so our membership has experience of most if not all methods of service delivery. Our main area of concern is the non-designated historic environment, primarily archaeological sites, and we welcome the opportunity to comment on these recommendations insofar as our expertise permits.

ALGAO supports a Local Plan-led approach to development, which protects the natural and historic environments and involves local communities, supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and associated guidance, and we are pleased this approach is to remain. However we recognise that the speed of the production of such plans has not been as desired, although we would suggest that the increased problems of local authority resourcing may be part of this.

We support the principle of putting local plans on a statutory footing, as we believe that a robust policy base is the best way to manage change in the historic environment, but in order to maximise this opportunity we would offer the following comments:

• We believe there is a need for increased guidance regarding the historic environment which, after all, does not reflect local political boundaries. In fact, the opposite is often true, as a landscape feature like a river may not be a boundary but could have been a focus for major activity in the past. This brings in the need for consistency and co-operation across authorities to manage the resource efficiently and fairly. Appropriate guidance for local authorities would enhance this, and has indeed been requested, so we fully support this recommendation.
• We would suggest that a clearer ‘duty of care’ for the historic environment be embedded in local plans and especially in devolution deals and other changes to authority structures (City Deals etc). Careful stewardship should be a key driver in managing the historic environment and we are concerned that the current provisions for this, via policy and not legislation, are vulnerable to inappropriate (if unintentional) change.
• This latter point has been exemplified most recently with the proposed changes to the planning system proposed by the Planning & Housing Act, such as permission in principle, brownfield registers and processing of planning applications. We consider these changes will serve to increase the number of inappropriate conditions relating to archaeology, contrary to the principle of the recently announced Neighbourhood Planning Bill, or creates a risk of no consideration of the historic environment being undertaken, contrary entirely to the NPPF.
• Further to the Planning & Housing Act, we would question whether there is a conflict between the requirement in that Act for local authorities to undertake sufficient environmental assessment to allow Permission in principle on sites, with the LPEG recommendation 25 to streamline the evidence base.
• Policy changes can potentially weaken the principles of the NPPF regarding sustainable development and the historic environment by removing the mechanisms necessary to understand it, and we would suggest that guidance on local plans could serve to minimise this and offer advice on management through the planning process. We would consider this especially relevant in light of the recommendations for site reserves and the need to understand viability issues around development: sustainable management and clear understanding of the historic environment are issues in both cases.
• At present these planning conditions allow archaeological work required to deliver sustainable development to be secured and, where necessary undertaken, before development commences. The potential adverse effect on un-designated heritage—i.e. that which is neither listed nor scheduled—is especially high, since this is the principal mechanism that provides for their protection. The Government’s response to the petition, “Stop Destruction Of British Archaeology. Neighbourhood and Infrastructure Bill” on 8 June 2016 does not wholly address these fears since it suggests that such conditions could only be imposed if the applicant agrees, in the absence of which a local authority can only refuse an application. Such an approach does not best facilitate the delivery of sustainable development determined at a local level in accordance with the development plan, but is more likely to produce planning by appeal rather than by consensus.
• Given our experiences with changes to policy, we would urge caution before amending guidance on SEAs and SAs without assessing the impact any such changes may have on the management of the Historic Environment. We would be pleased to advise further on this if required.
• We are very concerned over the quality of evidence bases used in local plans. The NPPF is clear on the need for evidence bases and the need for a Historic Environment Record (para.169) and also encourages the use of syntheses such as characterisation studies yet the evidence from our surveys is showing a decrease in the resources available to do such work. The number of professional archaeological staff working in local authorities has fallen by over 25% in recent years, and shows signs of further reduction. Some areas of the country no longer have access to professional advice or an evidence base.
• Along with a statutory duty of care, we suggest that the requirement to maintain or have access to a HER be placed on a statutory footing, and for the concept of a HER to be clearly defined, including the need for professional management of the resource. This would go a long way to ensuring the maintenance of professional advice to a local authority and thus help it look after its environment. Again we would be happy to advise further on this.
• We welcome the importance of community engagement to help people fully benefit from their environment. This is very relevant to the historic environment, where (if properly utilised) it can bring benefit to multiple other culture and well-being indices. There is also the economic value of the historic environment, with heritage tourism forming a major part of GDP and providing opportunities for growth and expansion. We would urge that local plans should seek to get maximum benefit from this resource.
• Will reserve sites (recommendation40) also be expected to have Permission in Principle?
• In view of the slow delivery of local plans, is it realistic to expect Minerals & Waste Plans by 2017?

The above represents a summary of ALGAO’s professional opinion on the issues under review. The two main mechanisms for management of the non-designated historic environment are planning and environmental stewardship and both require a long-term perspective and professional advice. We consider local plans to be a key element of this, especially if reinforced by a statutory duty of care and an up–to-date HER. We realise there may be several ways of delivering both, and would be willing to discuss further if so requested.

June 2016