The purpose of this annual review of archaeological activities within English Heritage is to integrate the work of a number of separate functional groups within the organisation, all of whom deal with archaeological issues, and to focus attention on developing policies and issues over the 12 month period in question. These policies are reflected in the work of our statutory Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee (AMAC) under the chairmanship of Sir David Wilson, whose advice is sought on all matters of substance relating to archaeological policy.
Planning Policy Guidance Note No 16 on Archaeology and Planning (PPG-16) was published by the Department of the Environment in November 1990 and sets out Government policy on archaeological remains on land and how they should be preserved or recorded. The first review of the implementation of PPG-16 was undertaken after just under a year of operation. The report, An evaluation of the impact of PPG-16 on archaeology and planning Pagoda Projects, typescript report circulated in January 1992, concluded that almost all local planning authorities in England had established procedures to ensure that archaeology was given appropriate consideration in determining planning applications. After the passage of 4 years, a second review of this important document was considered desirable and Review of the implementation of PPG-16, archaeology and planning undertaken by Roger Tym and partners and Pagoda Associates Ltd was published in April 1995. This review went beyond the areas covered earlier to include issues such as the post-approval monitoring of planning conditions and it quantified for the first time the extent to which archaeological considerations impinge on the planning process. The main findings of the review are:
The conclusions of the review are therefore very encouraging and underline the success of PPG-16 whilst rebutting any claims that the burdens it places on developers are excessive.
In general terms, the effectiveness of the archaeological input into planning procedures depends on three key factors, the availability to planning authorities of reliable archaeological advice provided by the staff of locally based sites and monuments records, the inclusion within development plans of appropriate archaeological policies, and archaeological assessment procedures which provide planning authorities with detailed information on which to base decisions on the archaeological sensitivity of development proposals.
Over the last decade, EH has assisted local authorities with the establishment of staffed sites and monuments records. Every county authority and a small number of district authorities in England now have their own archaeological advisory staff. In addition, EH is currently making provision for the creation of complementary urban archaeological databases for 30 of England's principal historic cities.
Archaeological conservation policies have now been included in the majority of structure and local plans reflecting the importance attached by PPG-16 to the careful management of the archaeological resource. In order to promote best practice in the drafting of these policies, EH has prepared advisory notes for local planning authorities on Development plan policies for archaeology (English Heritage 1992), jointly with the Countryside Commission and English Nature, on Conservation issues in strategic plans (Countryside Commission et al 1993), and Conservation issues in Local Plans (English Heritage et al 1996).
In 1995, EH published Planning for the past vol 1. A review of archaeological assessment procedures in England 1982-91 which addressed the third aspect of the archaeological planning process by providing a review of archaeological assessment procedures in the period leading up to and immediately following the issuing of PPG-16. It summarises aspects of the inter-related surveys of assessment procedures by the universities of Bournemouth and Southampton, highlighting areas of continuing concern and making recommendations aimed at consolidating and improving on current best practice. Complementary volumes were published in association with the University of Bournemouth (Planning for the past: vol 2. An assessment of archaeological assessments, 1982-91 by T Darvil, S Burrow, and D Wildgust), and the University of Southampton (Planning for the past: vol 3. Decision-making and field methods in archaeological evaluation by T Champion, S Shennan, and Paul Cuming). In addition, a gazetteer of all archaeological assessments between 1982 and 1991 was published as a supplement to the 1994 edition of British Archaeological Bibliography. These documents provide a valuable adjunct to PPG-16 and conclude that over 60% of the field evaluations in the sample cost less than £5000 at contemporary prices, nearly 90% cost less than £10,000 and only one project cost over £20,000 thus reinforcing the statement in PPG-16 that the evaluation of archaeological sites is a rapid and inexpensive operation. The project also had a great deal of interest to say concerning field methodologies, results, dissemination, and training, and concludes with a series of recommendations which are being pursued by EH. Such reviews are an essential adjunct to PPG-16 and will be updated annually.
The publication by EH of Frameworks for our past, summarises the results of the survey of research frameworks carried out this year. Seven hundred and twenty seven documents were examined and assessed to establish their relevance, the potential for further work, and any significant gaps. Interviews with individuals and representatives of organisations, a postal survey, and presentations at conferences and seminars helped to record perceptions of relevant issues, associated problems, and possible solutions. There is fundamental agreement throughout the discipline that in order to make longer term objectives sustainable, regional frameworks are needed in which all those active in archaeological work can participate, and on which curatorial decisions can be firmly based and fairly judged. The conclusions of the report emphasise the need for articulated and flexible national, regional, and local frameworks, and the importance of collaborative arrangements and partnerships to achieve this. The report outlines a number of options, but it is clear that many mechanisms already exist, but require better connection and co-ordination. The report has been very widely distributed, and will be the subject of extensive consultation during 1996-97; EH is ready to play an enabling and facilitating role during the consultation period and will consider in due course how it may best help to promote the development of integrated and collaborative research programmes in a regional, national, and international context.
Industrial archaeology: a policy statement was published in September 1995; this acknowledged the unique international significance of the country's industrial heritage and undertook that EH would continue with others to identify and record significant industrial landscapes, sites, buildings, structures, machines, and processes and to help with their effective management. The document also underlined our continuing commitment to education and training in industrial archaeology and to conservation of the industrial heritage combined with the promotion of public appreciation of its scope and potential.
As an endorsement of our commitment to these principles, EH commissioned and published an aerial study of the deep-mined coal industry in England. The survey was undertaken as a record of an industrial landscape which was vanishing as the work was in progress. A decade ago, there were in the region of 130 deep collieries at work in England. When the report was being written, there were less than 1/10th of that number. Colliery landscapes: an aerial study of the deep-mined coal industry in England is intended to provide a work of reference for all those involved in the management of the industrial heritage but also as a tribute to the communities who lived and worked in the coalfields.
As the financial burden of recording and publishing archaeological sites threatened with development is now largely taken up by developers, both public and private, so EH has moved its archaeological grants policy from one of reacting to developer-led threats to the development of strategic programmes designed to underpin and reinforce PPG-16, recording projects which lie outside the scope of PPG-16, and commissioning reports on important unpublished, excavations. Our support for development control posts in archaeological departments of local authorities continues to be sympathetic and 20 such posts were supported.
Strategic projects in support of PPG-16 include a documentary study of 20th-century defences in England, mapping of the patterns of medieval settlement, urban strategies for both the larger and smaller cities, the Monuments at Risk Survey, the English Rivers Palaeolithic Survey which is now in its final year, a series of projects to characterise and evaluate industrial monuments, and preliminary research and development on sustainabilitiy and archaeology.
Field projects which lie outside the scope of PPG-16 are also commissioned. Wetland surveys will be in progress until 2003, the excavation at the small Roman town at Elms Farm, Heybridge, Essex (see Archaeology Review 1994-95) received £1m, the biggest single grant, and the Boxgrove excavation produced more 500,000 year old hominid remains.
Important excavations long unpublished have also been supported. The excavations undertaken by Professor Grimes in the City of London, including St Bride's Church and the Roman Mithraeum, have been brought to publication with our support and the £3m publication programme for excavations in London has continued. It is clear that for the future such programmes will be highly selective.
The current scene is therefore divided clearly enough between the roles of public and private developers on the one hand and EH in its strategic role on the other. Over the next 12 months, that strategic role will need to be even more clearly defined with the advent of Lottery funding and it is already clear that this re-definition will be a prominent subject for the next issue of Archaeology Review.
Archaeology Review 1994-95 has been available on the World Wide Web since the end of April 1996 (http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev94_5/), and it is encouraging to note that it is now being accessed regularly from Europe, North America, Australia, and Asia, as well as the rest of the world, and that the number of accesses are already far in excess of its print run of 1000 copies. Effective dissemination of information and communication with the discipline and the public is extremely important, and the contents of this and future issues of Archaeology Review will continue to be made available on the Archaeology Division Home Page (http:www.eng-h.gov.uk/).
