44 C O N T E X T 1 1 5 : J U LY 2 0 1 0 Archaeological view Integrated heritage management in times of change The latest government policy and guidance raise worries – and opportunities – relating to the direction of historic environment management through the planning process. The long-heralded Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment was published along with the Government Statement on the Historic Environment for England and the Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide. This represents the most far-reaching policy update in 16 years for our sector (20 years for those most concerned with assets of archaeological interest) and is the weightiest element to have emerged from the Heritage Protection Reform (HPR) process to date. The draft documents gave the heritage sector, particularly those from the local government curatorial side, many causes for concern over the direction of historic environment management through the planning process. Compared to the draft, the published PPS is much improved. The introduction sets the agenda more lucidly (with clearer definitions of some of the new language used). It sets out the government’s objectives and links well to the Government Statement on the Historic Environment for England. The draft’s scattergun approach to climate change mitigation has been avoided by setting these issues out as a stand-alone policy section. The only significant backward step from the draft to the published statement is a watereddown need for ‘expert advice’, although better watered-down than none at all. Compared to the PPGs, the PPS is very much a stripped-down, policy-only document compared to the PPGs. It is underpinned by the practice guide and by topic-specific guidance documents being produced by English Heritage. It follows on from PPG 15 by building on a holistic approach to managing the historic environment. More notably, the PPS looks to put heritage at the heart of the planning process, whereas the PPGs, having brought (undesignated) heritage into the planning process, positioned it at the margins. This most welcome development is largely achieved in the PPS’s plan-making policies. While mentioning our old but quirky friend PPG 15, section six of the practice guide may go some way to placating those who lament the passing of Annex C. They will not, however, be fully put at ease. Much more topicspecific supporting guidance will be required to fill this gap. Despite this criticism, it is sensible to keep policy and practice separate, allowing for more regular updating of the latter. It is pleasing to note that English Heritage will be reviewing the practice guide within 18 months. This is particularly welcome, because the guide could have benefited from a further draft. A central new concept, perhaps the central concept in the PPS, is the level of ‘significance’ of a heritage asset (as we are now to call a site, historic building, monument, etc).We, the curators, are to weigh up the value of an asset in terms of its significance and assess the impact from a development proposal on that significance. The PPS defines the significance of an asset as historic, architectural, archaeological and/or artistic interest (these are all reasonably well defined in the PPS). This is a useful requirement since, as the managers of the material culture of human societies, we are often criticised as inconsistent in our requirements or following our own narrow whims and interests.With the PPS, it is now a clear requirement that an applicant must provide sufficient information on an asset’s significance and the impact of their proposal on that significance.We, the curators, must take into account the applicant’s and other set information when formulating advice and decisions, whatever our own ‘narrow whims and interests’ may be. We can welcome the drive to disseminate the findings of the investigations into an asset’s significance and the importance of historic environment records as a source of information on asset significance. In particular we can welcome the numerous hooks that allow us not only to consult the communities whose heritage we manage, but also to have those communities engaged in the investigations. Although what is suggested is rather passive, it does afford us the opportunities to push much further in facilitating the connection of communities with their heritage. After all, viewing platforms and open days, although having a Perhaps the central concept in the planning policy statement is the level of ‘significance’ of a heritage asset.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=