The Monuments Protection Programme

During 1994-95, the Monuments Protection Programme (MPP) worked to its current established target of preparing 1,800 scheduling proposals. This objective was achieved for the third consecutive year, and, while this is an essentially administrative target, it does represent an addition to the Schedule of about 2,500 archaeological sites. At the end of 1994-95 the Schedule stood at well over 15,000 monuments, representing a very much larger number of archaeological 'sites'. Our team of 18 regionally-based MPP archaeologists, augmented whenever appropriate by consultants and local authority assistance, are continuing to visit sites that have been evaluated, and to prepare scheduling proposals where necessary. Their work frequently involves pioneering definition and characterisation research on 'new' monument classes, in particular medieval land use monuments such as warrens.

Formal scheduling, however, is only one of the objectives to which the MPP is working. Scheduling carries significant statutory and moral weight, and its associated controls represent very strong restrictions to land use planning; the decision to schedule any particular monument must be made against the background of the wider planning system. During next year we intend to explore more rigorously the role of scheduling in the planning and protection system at a policy and strategic level. PPG16, whose continuing successful implementation has been now been demonstrated, offers a parallel route towards archaeological and conservation goals, and the work of the MPP constantly takes account of the relative appropriateness of scheduling and planning controls. The relationship between the two controls forms part of a broader conceptual framework, which properly includes the need somehow to protect and enhance character at local level, as well as the necessity to justify national designation where appropriate.

Some of these issues have already been addressed in the course of our Historic Landscape Project, which concluded that comprehensive assessment offers a better way forward than selective designation (Archaeology Review 1993-94). The integrated planning guidance which we publish jointly with English Nature and the Countryside Commission (Conservation issues in strategic plans, 1993, and Conservation issues in local plans, 1995) is also firmly based on the principles of sustainable development. We are now examining these issues in more depth, notably the concept of integrated 'whole environment' planning, in the context of recent and continuing debates on sustainable development. Many of these ideas originated with the 'green' movement and are concerned with issues related to the natural environment such as air, water, and wildlife; they have therefore not yet been fully adapted to the general or specific concerns of archaeology (including our built heritage). This year we plan to explore in some detail the relationship between archaeology and sustainable development.

In several areas, some of the more ambitious and long-term initiatives of the MPP reported in earlier Reviews are now beginning to bear fruit, including those related to towns and to industrial archaeology. There are now half a dozen county-based extensive urban surveys in progress (for instance in Kent, Somerset, Essex, Hereford and Worcester, Avon, and Gloucestershire) and others are being set up. Over the next few years these will allow us to begin formulating conservation and planning strategies, including scheduling, for the majority of the historic towns which will not have a full-scale, intensive Urban Assessment Database and Strategy. These extensive surveys will use archaeological records and plan-analysis to characterise the archaeological significance and environmental capacity of each distinct zone or area of an historic town, to allow identification of the most appropriate strategies for protection or recording.

On an even more ambitious scale, the MPP programme for industrial archaeology is now well under way. Seventeen separate industries have been, or are being, studied, ranging from lead and coal mining, through other forms of extraction, to salt working and the power and water supply industries. Five reports - lead, coal, alum, brass, and gunpowder - have now been completed. On the basis of an overall characterisation of the industry's history, with particular emphasis on its field and archaeological remains, each report identifies a selection of the most significant, best preserved sites, monuments, or buildings. Carefully considered and justifiable decisions on the protection of these features (taking account of the relative appropriateness of statutory designation and planning control) can now be taken with some confidence. For the lead mining industry, for example, from a total of c 250 sites judged as being nationally important we are considering a national sample for the Schedule of about 150 sites, and in addition some 60 buildings have been nominated for listing. This selection gives us both national and regional representation, taking account of all well surviving episodes of the industry's history since the late medieval period. Sites not proposed for formal designation are those where different strategies, for instance preservation by adaptive re-use or by record, are considered a more appropriate response. The lead industry report, as the first in the series, also included an important statement of policy on the relative application or overlap of the scheduling and listing regimes, which will inform future MPP work on the built heritage.

For the future, in partnership with the Council for British Archaeology, we are beginning to apply the national characterisation and evaluation procedures developed for industrial archaeology to twentieth-century military archaeology. Through a series of projects under the umbrella title `The Defence of Britain', we plan to create a consistent national conservation framework for these increasingly valued but increasingly rare monuments dating from the more recent past.