|
|
Note! We are constantly looking for new material for this guide. Please send us your comments and suggestions.
First written: Summer 1997; Last updated: 1 October 1999.
We're all familiar with the conflicts between controversial developments and the natural environment. Over the years, environmental campaigners have evolved an effective process for mobilizing public opposition to destructive roads, housing schemes, quarries and so on. But for a variety of reasons, the historic and cultural environment is often an afterthought, as much for environmental campaigners as for developers. The creditable organizations fighting to save our heritage often seem divorced from the broader green alliances. "Environment" too often means "ecology", "landscape" means "pretty countryside", and "history" means "last week" or "last year". Despite the huge public interest in cultural heritage, campaigners see archaeology as something academic, distant, and aloof. Desperate to increase the protection value of whatever they're fighting to save, campaigners latch on to rare habitats and species... but neglect ancient monuments, groups of monuments, protected hedgerows, archaeologically rich landscapes, and battlefields. The end result? Our tragically finite heritage is forgotten, trashed, and lost forever. Or consigned to a feeble write-up in a musty academic journal. Worse, no-one even notices until it's too late.
This document is designed to help people fighting environmental campaigns to incorporate archaeology into those campaigns. It's designed to be a practical guide. We're still writing it, and we very much welcome your input.
Get hold of the plans for the development you're fighting. Go down to the local planning office and check whatever material they have on file. For certain types of project, developers must submit an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in line with the 1985 EC Directive 85/337 and the various Environment Assessment Regulations that incorporate it into UK law (check out Butterworths Statutes on Planning Law (in many reference libraries) if you want to read the regulations themselves). Check whether your development falls within the category of mandatory or optional assessment and be prepared to argue a case for assessment if it looks like there should have been one.
If an EIA has been done, what does it say about archaeology? According to the EIA Directive, EIAs should detail the effects of a proposed development on "material assets and the cultural heritage", so make sure it's covered. If the EIA misses out archaeology, but you're certain important remains will be affected, ask the planning authority, Secretary of State, or whoever to require an archaeological assessment to be done.
Your next step is to have the quality of any archaeological assessments reviewed by someone competent, such as a friendly local archaeologist, local museum curator, regional branch of an archaeological society, archaeology or history department of a nearby university, or similar. If no EIA has been prepared and you believe there may be significant archaeological interest in the area affected, making these contacts may help you find out whether you have real grounds for concern.
Your County Archaeologist may be one of your most important allies. Don't automatically assume "local authority" therefore "part of the problem"; many county archaeologists do sterling work in a politically sticky environment. They are piggies in the middle, and not all piggies are willing to go to market. Contact your County Archaeologists via the local County Council (or Unitary Authority) office. The County Archaeologist is usually associated with the Environment or Planning Departments. But note that many County Archaeology departments are coming under increasing budgetary pressure.
All nationally-important campaigns start out as local campaigns. Don't automatically assume that what you have is of more than local or regional importance. But do bear in mind that you might have something that's more than locally (regionally or nationally) important. Don't exaggerate the importance of what you've got; seek expert advice. If you have something of national importance, play it for all it's worth.
Even without expert help, you can make quite a lot of progress. To start with, you will need to do some research.
Every county has a Sites and Monuments Register (SMR), theoretically a meticulous record of known archaeological sites, monuments, and finds arranged on a parish-by-parish basis (though the quality of SMRs has recently been called into question by a survey). Examine the SMR for your parish. Discuss your concerns with the County Archaeologist.
But hang on a minute: what are sites and monuments?
Monuments are discrete, localized items of obvious historical interest, such as a known settlement, Victorian aquaduct, Romano-British villa, or whatever. They are reference points in the landscape. Many ancient monuments are scheduled and, in theory, protected from damage under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979). Groups of monuments can also have a "group value". For example, a Bronze Age barrow might be found near a Roman Villa site. Although separated by time, they are components of a wider landscape and have more value as a result. It's even better if some or all of the monuments are of the same period. A development that plans to knock out one monument would then affect the integrity of the others.
Sites (for example, grave structures or building settlements) are rather more vaguely defined. Their importance is more a matter of interpretation, and tends to be determined by only limited archaeological work, known as "site sampling". You can use any finds on archaeological sites to argue for greater sampling. This pushes up the cost of archaeological work (which might be an important part of your campaign or protest).
Is the site part of a broader landscape that is linked to other sites of different types? The main planning policy instrument for archaeology, DETR Planning Policy Guidance note 16, PPG16 (the equivalent for Scotland is NPPG5/PAN42), makes it very clear that the wider impacts on archaeological landscapes must be taken into consideration:
"...where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by a proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ, i.e., a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or which would have a significant impact on the setting or on the visible remains."
Age is not necessarily the greatest factor in considering the importance of a particular site. For example, there might be hundreds of Iron Age sites in an area, but only one listed Victorian aqueduct. Campaigning on the aqueduct could be a much more fruitful line in this case.
Sites and monuments are not the only items of archaeological importance that you need to consider. Will the proposed work disturb deposits that may be very rare? (For example, archaeobotanical samples -- pollen and other specimens that are important indicdators in their own right.)
A good summary is Chapter 5 "Ancient Monuments Legislation" by David J. Breeze in Hunter & Ralston (ed): Archaeological Resource Management in the UK: An Introduction, published by Alan Sutton/IFA, 1994. You should be able to find the text of the relevant legislation in your local library in Halsbury's Statutes or binders of current statutes and statutory instruments (ask your librarian if you don't know where to find them).
Listed buildings legislation and scheduled monuments are good allies, but remember that nothing is truly "protected", especially where state-sponsored developments are concerned. If they want to build it, they can, and they will. If they can't build through the middle of it, they'll "just clip" the corner, or they'll "preserve the core area", or some other pathetic euphemism meaning "who gives a damn". The M3 extension through Twyord Down and the Newbury bypass are tragic catalogues of protected sites being systematically trashed by an uncaring government bureaucracy blind to the importance of ecology and heritage. Your only real recourse is to create a massive public outrage in the media. Do give the legislation a try, but remember who makes the laws and why, historically, they have done so. As lobbyist Christopher Ogg says: "Fighting you in the courts is a zero cost option for politicians--very expensive for you. The only cost politicians respond to are electoral costs".
Providing you bear this in mind, the law can still be useful. These are the relevant bits of legislation:
You can find out whether your hedgerows are ancient either by counting the number of species in a given length (Max Hooper's rule-of-thumb formula says that the age of the hedge in centuries is roughly equal to the number of woody species in a 30-yard stretch; check out books like Oliver Rackham's History of the British Countryside or Richard Mabey's Flora Britannica for details) or by going to your county record office and comparing current maps with old ones. The Hedgerows Regulations are also currently under revision and give no protection to stone and turf hedgebanks (as found in the west country), which may be up to 3000 years old.
Be careful about using "environmental lawyers". Many of them are no such thing. Some will quite happily take on your case, however hopeless it might be, just to make money out of you or the Legal Aid Board. We recommend using an experienced environmental lawyer with a commitment to the values you share, such as Earthrights.
The DETR (formerly Department of Environment) Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and Minerals Planning Guidance (MPG) notes are the key statements of government planning policy. Essentially, these are the key framework for judging planning applications, including those "called in" by the Secretary of State. They are hardly "notes", though; each of these forty or so documents is a fairly meaty booklet and reading through them takes a while. They are published by HMSO in booklet form and are often stocked at main reference libraries (or County reference libraries); if you must buy them, you will probably find them only at a really good bookshop such as Blackwells in Oxford (mail order on 01865-792792). Try to find someone who knows about them already who can advise you.
From the viewpoint of archaeology, the two most important PPG notes (well worth reading) are PPG15 and PPG16. PPG15 covers "Planning and the Historic Environment" (which means listed buildings and conservation areas) and PPG16 covers "Archaeology and Planning" (sites, monuments, landscapes, etc). PPG16 describes how archaeology should be treated in the planning process generally (by local planning authorities, at public inquiries, by developers, etc.) It is well worth reading all the way through. It lists addresses of useful organizations and other useful documents. Current Archaeology magazine has a good summary of PPG16 on its website.
PPG15 (para 1.3) makes it clear where the Government is (or should be) coming from: "The Government has committed itself to the concept of sustainable development -- of not sacrificing what future generations will value for the sake of short-term and often illusory gains..."
PPG16 (paragraph 6) has no doubt about the importance of archaeology: "Archaeological remains should be seen as a finite, and non-renewable resource, in many cases highly fragile and vulnerable to damage and destruction. Appropriate management is therefore essential to ensure that they survive in good condition. In particular, care must be taken to ensure that archaeological remains are not needlessly or thoughtlessly destroyed. They can contain irreplaceable information about our past and the potential for an increase in future knowledge. They are part of our sense of national identity and are valuable both for their own sake and for their role in education, leisure and tourism."
PPG16 (paragraph 8) is more explicit: "With the demands of modern society, it is not always feasible to save all archaeological remains. The key question is where and how to strike the right balance. Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation. Cases involving archaeological remains of lesser importance will not always be so clear cut and planning authorities will need to weigh the relative importance of archaeology against other factors including the need for the proposed development..." [emphasis in original]
PPG16 is most useful if you can make a case that nationally important remains exist on your site. You then have a case for the preservation of the remains and their settings, which might be your entire site.
PPG16 is also useful if you can demonstrate that developers have paid for an evaluation and they are ignoring (or circumventing) it. You can also use it to argue the case for more archaeological work if you can demonstrate that important relics have been found since the original archaeological evaluation.
If you're fighting a quarry, you'll find the various Minerals Planning Guidance (MPG) notes indispensable. You can find some of the MPG notes and other useful stuff on Paul Mobbs' excellent website.
Paragraphs 43-46 of MPG2 (Applications, Permissions, and Conditions) describe consultations that should take place over archaeology. MPG2 also sets out the considerations that would apply if any site on the application area should turn out to be worthy of designation as a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM).
MPG2 (para 43): "Mineral workings, both surface and underground, may damage or destroy structures and remains that are of importance to the national heritage. Ancient monuments, both above and below ground level, may be scheduled by the Secretaries of State under Section 1 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, as amended by the National Heritage Act 1983. The fact that a monument is scheduled means that any operator intending to carry out works likely to affect it requires scheduled monument consent from the appropriate Secretary of State. Where he grants consent for operations which will destroy the monument he will normally specify conditions to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for fall prior excavation and recording of the site."
MPG2 (para 44): "Local planning authorities are generally aware of scheduled monuments and may take these into account when handling planning applications. Nevertheless, the existence of a planning permission (or any other right to do the works) does not do away with the need to have scheduled monument consent. Developers may find it helpful to hold discussions with English Heritage, or Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments in the case of monuments in Wales, before a formal application for scheduled monument consent is made. It is also suggested that they plan their operations as far as possible in conjunction with the local archaeological unit wherever an archaeological site, even if unscheduled, is likely to be affected by a proposal for mineral working."
MPG2 (para 45): "Part II of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 allows for the designation of 'areas of archaeological importance'. Within these areas archaeological investigating authorities appointed by the Secretaries of State are given a right of access to land subject to impending development. That right of prior access can extend for as long as six months in all from the date when a developer serves notice of his intention to disturb or cover the ground concerned, to allow investigation and excavation before the planned development can proceed. In order to enhance the co-operation between mineral operators and archaeologists Government Departments have agreed a 'Code of Practice for Mineral Operators' with the Council for British Archaeology and the Confederation of British Industry to cover all sites in England, Scotland and Wales, whether designated or not. While mining operations carried out in accordance with this Code of Practice are exempt from the statutory provisions of Part II of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 by virtue of the Areas of Archaeological Importance (Notification of Operators) (Exemptions) Order 1984, scheduled monuments remain outside these arrangements and the scheduled monument consent procedure of Part I of the Act will still apply. The Code of Practice, which has also been adopted by the British Coal Corporation, applies to all mineral bearing land and sets out the agreed procedure for the liaison between the minerals operator and the relevant archaeological body for the county concerned."
The Code of Practice for Mineral Operators "Archaeological Investigations" is obtainable from the CBI, Centre Point, 103 New Oxford Street, London WC1A 1DU, United Kingdom.
Each region of the UK is covered by a specific Regional Planning Guide note (RPG), which usually has something to say (usually, unhelpfully vague) about the preservation of archaeology and heritage. For example, RPG10 covers the South West and has this to say:
RPG10 section 4.21: The Region is rich in areas, sites and structures of historic importance which contribute to the distinctive character of the South West. These include settlements and individual buildings of considerable historic or architectural quality as well as ancient monuments and historic landscapes. The quality of the built environment in the South West is an important factor in the Region's popularity as a place to live and as a tourist destination.
RPG10 section 4.23: The South West contains an impressive range of archaeological features and remains, from individual sites to extensive historic and prehistoric landscapes such as Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor. Stonehenge/Avebury and associated sites are internationally important, having been designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. Development plans should carry forward the advice in PPG16 on the protection of nationally important archaeological remains and their settings. In the case of remains of lesser importance, policies should seek to balance preservation against the need for development. Where policies are aimed at protecting remains in an extensive area, the area covered should be based on clear evidence of its likely archaeological importance.
Further down the line, if you cannot stop your development, you may get into a situation where archaeologists are called in to investigate the site. Try to understand where archaeologists are coming from. If the developers have skimped on archaeology, why? Are they trying it on? Is the system at fault? The vast majority of archaeologists are dedicated professionals who work for the love of what they do. They are poorly paid and often operate in a political climate that may include "gagging clauses" to prevent them discussing finds with the public or the media. There are plenty of good archaeological contractors, and there are plenty of mercenaries who do the job for economic rewards. Our 1997 conference in Salisbury tried to elaborate on some of these issues and why archaeology as a profession shows such ambivalence to destructive developments.
If the developers have agreed to pay for archaeological work, are the sites in the threatened area being sampled inadequately or too-hurriedly excavated? Bear in mind that today's economic climate prevents decent archaeological investigations in all but a handful of cases; but there's nothing to stop you arguing for better work in your particular case. And making sure the archaeologists and the developers do what they have agreed to do.
If a developer attempts to justify that they've made adequate provision for archaeology when they clearly have not (for example, holding up a small pot and saying it would never have been found without them, while trashing a much larger site), point out the wider damage they're doing to the landscape, and the moral obligation developers should have to look at their work through objective eyes.
If archaeological contractors are involved, ask to see their charter, and see if they are complying with it. See if they are complying with the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) charter that they should be signed up to, and notify the IFA of any concerns. But bear in mind that many construction companies have Environmental Policies, Statements, and Charters full of vague and meaningless promises they never live up to. Tarmac, which has a dreadful environmental record, even has an Environmental Advisory Panel made up of impressive environmentalists.
Archaeologists "excavate" only as a final option. The current policy is to "preserve in situ unless a site is being excavated to research requirements. Preservation in situ might mean, as at Newbury, building a massive motorway bridge on top of an important mesolithic site, and protecting it only with a "membrane". Sites are often preserved in situ under tons of concrete. It's also important to remember that excavation is, itself, a destructive process: would an academic take a newly written paper and burn it?
While you're watching the archaeologists, don't forget to uphold the dignity of human remains. The Burial Act (1857) is the relevant piece of legislation. Home Office directives state that developers must pay for screening to allow excavation to proceed outside the public gaze. Trashing cemeteries and burial grounds is never good PR for developers; use this to your advantage, particularly if you can establish links with the history of local people or the local community. Liken developers to grave robbers, or people who are prepared to plough through anything in search of profits. Don't forget that cemetaries from the prehistoric period often have settlements close by, so the discovery of human remains might indicate something of even more interest. Human remains are also a landscape feature in their own right, and a very emotive one at that.
Remember the public thirst for archaeology and heritage -- by definition, everyone's past. Within reason, everyone should have access to this shared heritage. Agencies charged with looking after our heritage must be held to be publicly accountable. Most people will be completely oblivious to what is happening, even if they could care less. It's your job to make sure everyone knows what's going on and everyone cares more.
Find good, human-interest stories. Do a press release. Do interviews on local radio and TV. Make sure your local community knows what's happening to its history! See our list of useful sites for tips on using the media effectively.
Be prepared to fight a developer in the public eye -- wash their dirty linen in public for them. Expect to hear arguments along the lines of "Well, the landscape is man-made so we're not doing anything now that people haven't done for centuries before." Mott Macdonald, the Consulting Engineers who designed the notoriously destructive M3 extension through Twyford Down in Winchester, like to see themselves in this noble tradition. But it's difficult to see future generations viewing their "achievements" (completely obliterating all evidence of archaeology) quite so favourably. Supporters of the Salisbury bypass said: "We flatten gravestones so we can mow over them, so why should these 'humps' (the archaeological sites on the route) be any different?"
It is true that archaeological landscapes take thousands of years to evolve. It is also true that they are partly man-made. But most of them date from a time when man interacted in a more sympathetic way with the landscape. There is no comparison between a six-lane motorway and an Anglo-Saxon cemetery.
A rather more general point. If it's the thrill of the fight you want, don't worry about this.... but don't necessarily expect to win your campaign. Development becomes harder to fight the further through the planning process it has moved. It's much easier to get developments thrown out before a public inquiry than after it, for example. Ideally, you need to spot up-and-coming proposals in draft Structure Plans, Local Plans, Development Plans, and Minerals and Waste Plans... and that means you need to aware of the need to review these documents as soon as they emerge for public consultation. Get together with other people in your area to identify threats as they appear. The time to start mobilising public opinion is not when a planning application goes in, and certainly not after it's been approved by a council or the Secretary of State, but when it's first mooted by the developer or rumoured in the local paper.
That doesn't mean you stop fighting in the later stages or that you never start fighting once things have progressed beyond a certain point; there are plenty of cases where people have won campaigns at the very latest stages. At Offham in the South Downs in 1997, a farmer was stopped from ploughing up a SSSI by direct action after he had already ploughed up some of the area. Hundreds of volunteers then "unploughed" that area by hand. It's never too late to fight!
Another general point. Remember that plenty of other people have had to go through this before you and have learned valuable lessons. Try to get in contact with anyone who has fought (and won) a battle similar to yours and sound them out. Beware of making false parallels that do not exist; every case is different. Maybe we can learn only by making our own mistakes, but we can at least try to learn from other peoples'.
Send us your tales of horror and delight, your top tips for preserving our heritage, so that we can pass them on to other campaigners. Good luck!
@nticopyright - copy, use, and distribute freely.
