Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

The Council for British Archaeology (CBA), which has a membership of over 5,000 individuals and 500 organisations, is the principal UK-wide non-governmental organisation that promotes knowledge, appreciation and care of the historic environment as a means of sustaining the quality of life of present and future generations.

The time-depth of human interaction with the environment in Britain is considerable, ranging as far back as the first human colonization of northern Europe about half a million years ago through to the modern day. This history of human interaction with the environment over many millennia presents an all-pervasive environmental legacy, to the extent that features that are often thought of as part of the 'natural landscape'. For example the regional variety in the landscape that the Landscape Character Areas established by the Countryside Agency and English Nature, or those small peculiarities that go to make up what is often termed 'local distinctiveness', are the surviving traces of how past human interaction with the environment has varied from place to place and through time - not just in the past but as an ever-continuing process of change and adaptation. Many of the processes and trajectories for environmental change with which we are concerned today are intimately bound up with the long history and pre-history of human interaction for which archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains provide a crucial and unique record.

Britain's historic environment (the physical fabric of our archaeological sites, historic buildings and settlements, landscape and townscape features and character, together with palaeo-environmental resources) allows us to reconstruct past environmental and social change, and is a vulnerable and non-renewable resource - albeit one to which "new" material is added as its historical value comes to be perceived. Losses made now can never be made good by 'restoration' or 'enhancement'. It is therefore incumbent on this generation to ensure that this inherited capital is safeguarded for the benefit of future generations.

The CBA very much welcomes the Royal Commission's study into environmental planning. In particular we wish to emphasise the following general points that we believe should become embedded in the thinking of the Commission in its consideration of environmental issues, and its recommendations to Government:

• We wish to highlight the interconnectedness of different aspects of the environment, especially between the historic environment and ecology, landscape, pollution global warming and coastal issues, agriculture and development.
• We draw attention to the clear need for a more holistic definition of sustainable development and environmental planning which recognises that the 'natural' and 'cultural' environment are two sides of the same coin.
• We believe there should be much more integrated planning and environmental management systems which seeks not just to bridge the gap currently separating the 'environmental' remit of DETR and 'cultural' remit of DCMS, but also more generally overcome the lack of joined-up thinking about the historic environment in policy making across government.
• We wish to draw the Royal Commission's attention to the vital role played in sustainable development at regional and local level by local authority conservation and archaeological officers, and Sites and Monuments Records in providing information and advice about the historic environment in relation to the whole range of environmental, agricultural and land-use planning regimes - a core role in environmental planning that needs to be put on a statutory footing if it is to be effective in contributing to the overall goal of environmental improvement for a better quality of life.

Below we offer more detailed responses to the specific questions presented in the consultation document.

Question 1a, b
The CBA is disappointed that in all too many cases the concept of sustainability is too narrowly drawn, resulting in environmental protection policy and procedures that in the worst cases can actually be detrimental to the historic environment. We believe that this is prejudicial to achieving the overarching goals of sustainable development and is in need of urgent attention. Particular examples of recent concern include:

• Contaminated Land Regulations (England)
  Despite detailed representations made by the CBA and English Heritage, the recently issued regulations do not adequately address the environmental complexities and impacts which can derive from the processes required for decontamination of land, in particular through failing to integrate other government policy in this area such as PPG15 and PPG16 or with existing legislation relating to nationally important Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings or Conservation Areas. This is of particular concern as many contaminated sites are of archaeological interest either in terms of their earlier industrial uses or by merit of their location at the core of historic settlements, or where well-preserved archaeological remains from earlier periods are likely to survive but will. Ironically the contaminated land regulations, although promulgated to achieve environmental protection aims, offer a much less rigorous environmental decision making process toward the historic environment than that provided under the Town and Country Planning System. In particular they fail to promote adequate consideration of the whole historic environment as an essential environmental consideration from the earliest opportunity, thus failing to promote twin goals of government policy of effective conservation while streamlining planning and decision-making.
• Renewable Energy
  The CBA fully supports the government's efforts to reduce the output of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. However we are concerned that whilst initiatives for renewable energy, in particular the promotion of energy crops, have been subject to rigorous ecological assessment during policy appraisal and formulation, there has been no similar attempt to rigorously consider the direct impact on archaeological sites or on wider historic landscape character and setting. We therefore welcome in principle the recommendations recently made in the Royal Commission's 22nd report that there should be adequate long-term research into environmental impacts deriving from obtaining and using renewable energy, and that regional renewable energy assessments should consider options for meeting energy demands in light of their impact on landscape character and following strategic environmental assessment. However, we are very concerned that effects in relation to the historic environment should be considered as part of this process.
• Marine Environmental High Risk Areas
  The recent research and consultation by DETR omitted to encompass any of the key government or non-governmental organisations with an interest in the historic environment. As a consequence no consideration was made of the risk to marine and coastal archaeological sites and monuments (including for example war graves and recognised wrecks) resulting from maritime pollution incidents, or of the risk presented by emergency clean-up operations that follow such incidents.
• The Code of Practice for Conservation Access and Recreation: Guidance for the Environment Agency and Water and Sewerage Undertakers
  We believe that this Code of Practice, originally issued in 1989 and recently revised does represent a reasonably comprehensive and integrated approach to the environment, but that this is not matched by the organisations' provision of professional in-house expertise to cover historic environment issues compared with ecological and other environmental matters. The bulldozing of a Scheduled Ancient Monument at Rookhope in County Durham late last year, where works by the Environment Agency to stem contamination of groundwater from an historic mine resulted in the demolition of parts of a nationally important Scheduled Ancient Monument without consent, suggest that an audit of provision of appropriate expertise and procedures to implement the Code is needed. This is now all the more urgent in the light of the key role of the Environment Agency in implementing the Contaminated Ground Regulations, where complex interactions between archaeology, pollution and brownfield development are already becoming common.

Question 1c
We believe that a mixture of environmental designation (for the historic environment, listing, conservation areas scheduled monument registered parks etc.) involving special controls and characterisation-based policy - aimed at retaining or using as inspiration for new design, the more commonplace that gives a place its historic local or regional character. The former is an approach over 100 years old for scheduled monuments, the latter a much more recent development, so far developed for only some select areas (conservation areas, village design statements), with a few county and regional initiatives being developed.

Currently the planning system is too development/ demand led. Just as the demand led approach to road building has been discredited, so the demand led approach to housing is increasingly seen as questionable. There is a need to move more towards a capacity-led approach. For example, long term patterns of rural settlement that give many areas their distinctive character should be considered more closely and sensitively in relation to housing allocation - one sure way to lose the historic character of a place is to impose a dense nucleated village form of settlement on an area that historically was characterised by very scattered settlement. The almost ubiquitous "village envelope" approach to rural development starts from unstated assumptions about rural settlement that in some areas may be appropriate, but in many areas of highly scattered settlement is demonstrably inappropriate. Work looking at settlement pattern through postcode data carried out for the Countryside Agency's landscape character mapping suggests a relatively straightforward means of exploring this further and relating it to issues such as the relative traffic congestion and pollution that might arise from different scenarios.

At a more detailed level the planning system could in general be made much more effective and efficient by becoming based much more fully on very thoroughly informed pre-application discussions with authorities covering all environmental issues in an integrated way. Currently there is still too much un-integrated and ill-informed planning and decision-making to achieve good, environmentally led design. For the historic environment work by both the voluntary sector (Catalytic Conversion, SAVE, 1998) and English Heritage (The Heritage Dividend 1999) has shown how conservation-led regeneration can act as a catalyst for several different aspects of public policy to be brought together within a very positive and high quality planning delivering lasting value and considerable economic and social benefit.

Question 1d
The change to a plan-led system ought to be more sustainable, but this does not follow in practice - and is not easy to achieve - because it relies very heavily on the delicate balancing of often competing economic social and environmental issues. Conflicts can as easily arise within different aspects of the environment as between the environment and other factors. While in theory a sensible balance might be achieved by considering all such matters, in practice this is very difficult and often resource limited. For example, since 1994 PPG 15 has exhorted local authorities to carry out assessments of the all-pervasive historic character of their areas in drawing up their development plans, but this has very seldom been achieved.

Question 1e
In order to move from a "predict and provide" approach to one of "plan, monitor and manage", greater effort would be needed to enhance not only constraints based data, but also character based information managed through GIS. We believe that for the historic environment progress is being made in this direction in respect of the "plan" element of the tripartite requirement, but that systems for environmental monitoring of the state of the historic environment are woefully under-developed.

Question 1f
Similarly, most current planning does not adequately take account of cumulative change. To a significant extent, at least for the historic environment, this is because there is an inadequate conceptual basis for judging this at all the different scales and different types of valued features to which it could apply. Nevertheless, there are well-established principles about the nature of change that could be used to judge cumulative loss of key historic characteristics. There remains a fundamental philosophical problem however, that goes back to the fact that there has been human interaction with the whole environment over millennia, which is that environmental change is ongoing, and is what has produced our valued habitats and historic features; we are now protecting sites and buildings and habitats that in some cases did not exist 30 or 50 years ago. An approach based on understanding the nature direction and trajectory of change, the timescale over which different degrees of change matter (the longevity of current values) are thus more fundamental, than a simple approach taking "now" as the baseline from which change happens.

Question 1g
We believe that achieving sustainable outcomes relies on the availability and provision at all levels of high quality environmental information and expertise. However, we believe that conservation of the historic environment has become isolated from the mainstream of environmental conservation in government, mainly through a lack of sufficient joined-up thinking between DETR and DCMS, and a failure on the part of some other departments and agencies (the Defence Estates Agency and Highways Agency being notable exceptions) to recognise the historic environment as a core issues impinging on their environmental responsibilities and policies for sustainability. This not helped by the fact that the national heritage agencies have suffered from significant long-term under-funding, with English Heritage for example having seen their funding cut every year for the last six years and with a further £17 million cut in real terms projected over the next 3 years. Historic Scotland, Cadw and the Environment and Heritage Service for Northern Ireland face similar long-term under-funding problems. If government is serious about sustainable development then it follows that it should ensure that its own primary advisers on sustaining the historic environment should be adequately resourced to play an active role in influencing and contributing to policy across government.

The need for such information and expertise carries through to local government, where it is equally critical. Local government conservation officers and archaeologists, working with well-maintained Sites and Monuments Records and other sources of information and locally based expert advice, should be recognised as fundamental to the pursuit of sustainable development in relation to the historic environment. Unfortunately, in the absence of a statutory requirement to provide such services, there has been a loss of posts covering archaeological and historical conservation in the past few years and a total absence of such services in some areas. We believe that this urgently needs to be rectified through placing the provision of archaeological and historic building advice and the maintenance of Sites and Monuments Records on a statutory footing and through the inclusion of archaeological information and advice services within the Local Government Standard Spending Assessment.

While procedures are complex, we believe that the problems are much more to do with lack of integrated environmental thinking form the outset of any project - often by both regulator and developer - than r

Question 2a, b
We recognise the issues of environmental mismatches with administrative areas, but this is bound to happen - not least because environmental differences and variations can be viewed at very different scales. In general, although there is certainly some inconsistency in approach from one administrative area to another, this problem is trivial compared with the gulf represented by the failure of bodies with different administrative responsibilities to recognise the historic environment as being a key environmental issues that they should take into account.

Question 2c
The CBA supports the principle that the land-use planning system should be responsible for helping to deliver policy targets in other areas. We would draw attention to the fact that for conservation of the historic environment this is already the case to a significant degree, through PPG15 and PPG16, on which a great deal of conservation policy relies. Furthermore, PPG15 and PPG16 are in some cases recognised as having application beyond the strict confines of the planning system. In commissioning the current review of government policy towards the historic environment these two documents have been identified as representing the basic principles of current policy in general, not just within a planning context. However, it is equally the case that in some areas (eg agriculture, flood defence) the absence of formal planning and use of codes of practice and other incentives, has lamentably failed to address a number of key issues - largely because it is not adequately recognised as the "all-pervasive" environmental issue that PPG15 clearly states, and duties and responsibilities are not supported and delivered by internal professional staff.

Question 2d
We strongly believe that GIS, backed by appropriate professional expertise and advice, is an extremely useful tool for environmental planning, both in day-to-day decision making, and also in areas of strategic policy appraisal (for instance in using comparative data on contaminated land from the National Land Use Database and the archaeological records held in Sites and Monuments Records/National Monuments Records). A growing number of local authority Sites and Monuments Records already make extensive use of GIS on a day-to-day basis in informing planning and land-use decision making, and recent initiatives such as English Heritage's Historic Landscape Characterisation projects have made full use of GIS. In several cases it has been found that historic environment data is amongst the most complex and extensive that local authorities hold in digital form, and a number have found that it has been of considerable importance in developing the environmental aspects of GIS systems. For historic environment data however, it needs to be recognised that the data-set is continually evolving. New fieldwork and research inevitably leads to new discoveries and reappraisal of existing data. It also needs to be acknowledged that the GIS coverage of Sites and Monuments Records varies throughout the country, and that in the absence of a statutory requirement for local authorities to maintain SMR's the coverage is likely to remain partial and inadequate as long as local government finances are stretched to cover core statutory activities.

Question 2e
Forestry can be among the most archaeologically damaging operations. Although the forestry Commission does have an archaeological policy that is on the whole well respected, there remain several aspects in terms of obtaining adequate information about the archaeological interest of afforestable areas, and technical matters concerning the level of damage caused by tree roots that need to be explored.

Evidence indicates that the lack of control of activities such as forestry and agriculture is prejudicial to the achievement of environmental sustainability. The Monuments at Risk Survey (for England) in particular highlighted the impact of ploughing on archaeological sites, accounting for 10% of all destruction of archaeological monuments and 30% of all damage. There is no other more destructive agency for the nation's archaeological heritage. Current work commissioned by MAFF to review and develop policy initiatives to start to tackle the impact of ploughing on archaeological sites is very welcome, but the issue need to be much more widely recognised as an issues of prime conservation of an irreplaceable resource that is steadily being eroded away across the whole country where arable agriculture is practiced, and is as much or more an issue for highly intensive prairie farming as for areas more commonly seen as "environmentally sensitive". As a matter of urgency we believe that the class consents for Scheduled Ancient Monuments under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 should be reviewed. The class consent allows the continuation of agricultural activities, in particular ploughing, on which results in the continued loss and destruction of monuments that are Scheduled as being of national importance.

This is also an issue that has a number of interactions with other environmental issues, most notably the management of soils (both compaction and erosion) and the chemical effects of agri-chemicals (damage to historic artefacts in the plough soil), but also water abstraction, drainage and irrigation.

Aspects of lack of control over the built environment mean that aspects of agriculture such as farm buildings and roads can be damaging to the setting of historic buildings or the fabric of archaeological sites, outside any form of control. Equally, some over-restrictive planning policies may be limiting opportunities for sensitive regeneration of historic farm buildings that are no longer suitable for agricultural use, but might have potential for diversified businesses.

Question 3a
The CBA believes that the piecemeal way in which environmental planning has developed has resulted in undesirable areas of ambiguity in relation to responsibilities for protection of the historic environment. We strongly believe that the procedures for environmental protection, strategies for sustainable development and the town and country planning system need to be more closely integrated and aligned, so that all environmental impacts and benefits are considered for all landus e, agricultural and environmental protection decisions.

Question 3b
For the most part there is a fairly clear hierarchy of development plans, and in so far as they incorporate environmental objectives this applies. However this is essentially a development-led process, and the development of more conservation and environmentally led planning based on clear criteria for the level of information required to support it might produce more sensitive plans, better in tune with people's aspirations.

Question 3c, d
We believe that far more emphasis should be put on the quality of planning decisions rather than the speed with which they are made. The current planning regulatory framework has a crucially beneficial role to play in achieving high quality, sustainable and satisfactory land-use decisions and practice. We believe that the delays which too often seem to be a feature of the present system can be avoided by ensuring that early, properly informed consultations take place between applicants and LPA's, so that applicants are fully informed of the key environmental and planning issues at the outset, and so that applicants submit sufficiently detailed applications. We also believe that clearer guidance could be given on the principles on which sustainable decisions are made, form the broad strategic scale down to the detailed level (eg listed building consent for minor alterations). This would do much to help dispel the common view that the planning system is obstructive without good cause, rather than being there to manage change in ways that are sensitive to long term environmental conservation and quality of life.

Question 3e
Following on from our responses to 1a and 3a we strongly believe that the mandates and procedures of the pollution bodies need strengthening with regard to their responsibilities towards archaeology and the historic environment. In particular, it is critically important that such bodies have access to in-house specialist expertise and advice to enable them to implement Codes of Practice and to ensure that management plans, for example such as the EA's own LEAP's, are not just paying lip-service to the responsibilities defined under the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Environment Act 1995. It is clear from cases like Rookhope (referred to above) that internal procedures and contractual arrangements can fail to deliver wider environmental responsibilities - in this case subject to separate legislation.

Question 3f
We welcome the move away from demand-led transport planning, but do not believe that sufficient integration of landuse and environmental planning has yet been achieved, particularly at local level. Although some schemes are sensitive the rigid application of engineering standards is often very insensitive to the historic character of places where new traffic schemes are introduced. As with other aspects of planning there needs to be more conservation-led design for sensitive areas.

Question 3g & 3h
We believe that fiscal measures have an important role to play in complementing environmental planning regulations. In terms of fiscal incentives we believe that harmonisation of VAT for repair and maintenance of historic buildings with that of new build should be seen as priority fiscal measure that achieves environmental benefits across a range of sustainable development policy areas. In particular we note that harmonisation would be environmentally beneficial through providing an incentive for continued and new uses of historic buildings and in reducing waste (both physically and in terms of the 'stored' energy and material already invested in existing buildings).

We believe that it is important to recognise that the use of fiscal instruments in influencing sustainable development is a very blunt instrument - it can influence the price of development in general, but is not sensitive to location - especially not site-specific location. Environmental impact and mitigation is above all site and location-specific. Any attempt to link such taxes to environmental impact in a real sense is bound to be crude - at least in terms of environmental resources that are themselves site-specific. We believe that indiscriminate use of 'off-setting' and standardised charges to capture the effects of development proposals could in fact send reverse signals to the effect that otherwise unacceptable environmental impacts can be bought through taxation. We believe that fiscal penalties should not be used as a back door to subsidising unsustainable consequences of developments or for financing the mitigation of environmental impacts for which the planning system already requires developers to make proper provision.

Question 4a
Whilst the CBA broadly supports the principles of subsidiarity and appreciates the role and benefits in certain policy areas for local discretion and increased local deliberative processes, we are concerned that the lack of specialist expertise at the local level can lead to an undervaluing of complex environmental goods, which in turn can result in poorly informed decision-making. We are particularly concerned that over-emphasis on local decision-making is likely to result in an over-representation of environmental issues in and around settlement centres and the under prioritising of important environmental concerns further afield.

If we are to move to a better balance between designation controls, and characterisation-based planning for change, there is a need to develop much better public participation in deciding what matters and why. Much that is valued is recognised intuitively rather than consciously, and greater participation is not something that can be delivered with any ease - especially if it is to be socially inclusive. Furthermore, this is not a matter which can be left to government, but must involve the voluntary sector through its roots in the community. We believe that this is important for people's quality of life, and the key requirement is for more resources to be put into education for sustainability as a key goal of life-long learning. Ultimately this leads into DFEE's responsibilities and the National Curriculum in relation both to sustainability and citizenship.

Question 4e
Whilst social and economic regimes do need to vary across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to take into account local economic conditions and problems, we believe that environmental considerations remain similar regardless of borders and therefore feel that environmental planning regimes should follow broadly similar models across the UK. Under the current systems there are instances of best practice which seem not to have been carried through by all administrations so that for instance the sustainability of the maritime historic environment in England is carried out in an unsatisfactory and under-resourced fashion in England under DCMS, whereas in Scotland the performance of this role has greatly benefited through devolution of responsibility to Historic Scotland.

We also believe that much can be learned from other parts of the UK about the greater integration of 'cultural' and 'natural' environmental matters within a single agency as represented by the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service, where for example it has been possible to develop an integrated approach to using low level air photography environmental monitoring of the condition of ecological and archaeological sites and for pollution events.

Question 4f
The CBA supports the introduction of a third party right of appeal, although we believe that strict selective criteria would need to be drawn up to prevent such appeals becoming a vehicle for unjustified and wholesale 'nimbyism'. Such criteria would need to identify the circumstances and boundaries of legitimate concerns.

Question 5a, b
Overall, we strongly favour the use of environmental appraisal techniques. Typically for the historic environment environmental assessments are poor at assessing impact adequately, and this applies as much or more to environmental benefits as impacts. A particular weakness at present is the failure to have developed historic characterisation on a much wider basis. Typically when done, planners and other environmental professionals often find that the process provides an explanatory context that often provides firmer roots or new insights for their own assessments.

In general we believe that plans are under-researched from the point of view of conserving the historic environment, with the result that significant aspects of the historic character of a place or the complexities that might be thrown up by, say, the buried industrial and other archaeology of a brownfield site earmarked for development, that is also contaminated. In our view there should be more integrated effort to identify places where a number of environmental issues are likely to arise involving highly complex interactions, and in those cases special efforts should be made from the earliest opportunity to gather sufficient information to understand those complexities. This would be likely to go beyond the normal appraisal approach that would usually rely only on existing indexed data (as held in a sites and monument record) and could extend to desk, if not field survey. This raises a more general point that environmental impact assessment procedures are predicated mainly on the size or nature of developments rather than the environmental sensitivity of the site. For developing and appraising environmental and development plans the emphasis should be more closely focussed on assessing environmental sensitivity and complexity.

This can happen both at a large scale, and for example where historical research and specialist understanding of early industrial processes can usefully inform assessments of ground contamination. Also typically, there is often far too little integration of site investigations carried out to investigate archaeological geotechnical and contamination constraints. Such collaboration can deliver added value in the quality of information gained as well as being more economical.

Question 5c
Whilst we do believe that there are a range of useful assessment tools available for assessing the impact of plans and developments we believe that assessment methods which involve attributing monetary value to environmental assets, costs and benefits should be strongly resisted. We believe that such monetary valuation techniques fail to appreciate sufficiently the complex value systems that are attached to the environment or capture the true environmental or quality of life costs. Such "values" are never absolute, but are relative to the cost of alternatives. The trade-off that results is not based on financial values but political ones.

Question 5e
For the historic environment the knowledge base is variable. There is much information about the location of known (or designated) historic environment resources, and much of this is digital (some in GIS) through sites and monuments records. However there is also a great deal of non-designated parts of the built environment and the countryside that is neither recorded nor otherwise mapped and yet may contribute a great deal to the character of the place concerned. Much archaeology is awaiting discovery - either through lack of survey or through the difficulty of detecting buried sites under different geological and landuse conditions. In the uplands, survey work typically uncovers about a 4-fold increase in recordable archaeology, and comparison of what was recorded on SMRs prior to desk studies and fieldwork on large linear infrastructure projects compared with the results of fieldwork reveal comparable levels of increase. Both PPG15 and PPG 16 provide mechanisms for staged appraisal which do much to overcome this problem, that have proved very successful over the last 10 years.

A more serious gap in knowledge is the current absence of any effective means of monitoring the condition of the historic environment except for a few limited categories (eg Grade I and II* listed buildings at risk). This is largely attributable to lack of resources, lack of sufficient collaboration between public and voluntary sectors, and lack of agreed methodologies and systematic data recording to make such information readily available for digital analysis.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study