Like Billy Bunter's postal order, the Government's Green Paper on the heritage of England and Wales was expected from day to day for well over a year. Protecting Our Heritage finally arrived in May, and after months of leaks and rumours it sprang few surprises. To give credit where it is due, Protecting Our Heritage and its Scottish counterpart - issued simultaneously, and distinctively titled Protecting the built heritage - contain much to applaud.
Examples are the recommendation that Sites and Monuments Records - inventories of the historic environment maintained by local government - should be put on a statutory footing in England and Scotland (though not in Wales, where arrangements differ), and the devolution of many controls over scheduled monuments to local authorities.
Another welcome proposal is aimed at eliminating doubt in the definition of damage to an ancient monument. Courts have been reluctant to equate disturbance of sub-surface deposits with `damage', even though such disturbance is stratigraphically harmful.
Both Green Papers address the remarkably indulgent wording of section 2(8) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, which makes ignorance that an area is scheduled a defence for unauthorised works. Quite rightly, the Government considers that this should be removed.
So the thrust of both documents is towards tidying the systems we have rather than radical departures. Tidying is entirely worthy, even if it makes for dull reading. On the other hand, full marks to the introduction to Protecting Our Heritage which encompasses - perhaps for the first time in a document of this kind? - virtually all the points about local distinctiveness and the environment that the keenest CBA member would wish to see.
The nearest Protecting Our Heritage comes to being controversial is in the Government's desire to repeal Part 2 of the 1979 Act, and more particularly in the discussion of listing.
Part 2 of the 1979 Act provides for the designation of Areas of Archaeological Importance. Only five such Areas have ever been designated. All are in historic towns, and all in England. Contrary to the implication of their name, AAIs do nothing to protect (beyond the cachet conferred by the designation, which is influential). In concept, AAIs date from the pre-PPG16 era. They provide only for archaeological access in advance of development, and make no provision for funding.
The Government argues that AAIs are obsolete, and that they have been overtaken by PPG16 which places archaeology `more firmly in the planning process'. This is broadly true, but the interesting thing about AAIs is that the towns which have them seem to like them - partly because they provide a mechanism for monitoring the many kinds of ground disturbance which do not come under the planning system. An alternative to scrapping AAIs, not discussed in the Green Papers, would be to modernise them.
The most disturbing feature of Protecting Our Heritage is the Government's trend of thought towards the listing of buildings. Listing as we have it is straightforward. A building is listed for its architectural or historic importance; it is either listed or it isn't, and if it is, it is listed in its entirety. Once listed, any proposals to demolish or alter the building in ways which would affect its character come under special scrutiny.
The Government shows signs of retreat from this simplicity. Perhaps rattled by taunts from the media and complaints about `heritage police' from grumpy owners, the three Secretaries of State invite discussion of whether some new listings might concern exteriors alone, and whether the listing of certain categories of building should be preceded by public consultation.
Innocuous as these and other related suggestions may seem, any drift towards what would be (or could turn into) differential listing needs to be examined with the greatest care. To be fair, the Government does not commit itself to any of these ideas. Rather, it invites `lively debate' upon them. The onus is now on us to explain the dangers.
And speaking of dangers, the Government which publishes these proposals - the majority of which deserve support - does so against a background of cuts in the funding of bodies which will be expected to implement them. Conservation cannot be exempt from calls for national thrift, but neither can it be postponed pending wealthier times.
Both Green Papers are available from HMSO bookshops. Anyone wishing to comment should do so by 30 September.
Richard Morris is the Director of the CBA
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1996