| ISSN 1357-4442 | Editor: Simon Denison |
|---|
| COMMENT |
New Labour shows no inclination to continue the work of the last Government, writes Richard Morris
Archaeologists once campaigned for better laws to protect the historic environment. Then came PPG16 - the Government guidance which makes developers responsible for the archaeological consequences of their planning applications. With PPG16 in place, calls for new laws subsided.
The case remains, however, for modernising the laws we have. Our principal measure is the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Note the date. Considered to be uncontroversial, it was whizzed through Parliament during the last hours of the Callaghan Government. Now, however, the Act is showing its age. Parts remain serviceable - for example its provisions for scheduling outstanding sites - chiefly because they were little more than upgradings of legislation which went back to the 1880s. In other respects time has exposed defects, and what was hailed at the time as its most innovatory feature - Part 2 - is now widely seen as a white elephant.
Part 2 gives us the `Archaeological Areas' of the Act's title. It was drafted in days when the planning system had little grip on archaeology - the `rescue' era, when archaeologists raced to snatch what information they could before developers' bulldozers moved in. Developer funding and co-operation were the exception in those days, so Part 2 provided for the designation of Areas of Archaeological Importance within which forthcoming development would be statutorily notifiable, followed by opportunity for archaeological recording.
In prospect this sounded good. In the event it made little difference. In the first place `Area of Archaeological Importance' turned out to be a bit of a misnomer, for while it implied an area that was special, and thus to be cherished, all it provided for was access in advance of destruction, and not much access at that.
Secondly, there was nothing in the Act to say who should pay for the work, and access without resources was no formula for action. Thirdly, only a handful of Areas were ever designated: the Thatcher Government eventually designated five historic town centres for purposes of trial, and then stopped. And fourth, the forerunner of English Heritage was already beginning to contemplate more creative use of the planning system - an approach which eventually led to PPG16. This in turn resulted in a view that Part 2 is obsolete.
Indeed, the last Government was contemplating Part 2's repeal. The repeal of Part 2 was but one item in a package of proposals for legislative reform upon which John Major's Government was consulting before its defeat. A number of them, like giving statutory status to Sites and Monuments Records, were very sensible. As local services continue to buckle in their efforts to meet increased expectations with declining resources (see 'Erosion of county archaeology goes on', and BA, February, March) the historic environment would be better cared for today if they had been implemented.
Ancient monuments sound uncool, and New Labour's Department of Culture has shown no inclination to carry on where its predecessor left off. That is a pity, because ironing out the Act's wrinkles would not be difficult, and as time passes more wrinkles appear.
One of the most glaring weaknesses concerns the definition of what an ancient monument actually is. As long ago as 1990 Chris Patten, the then Environment Secretary, invited the CBA to identify areas where reform was needed. We pointed out that the 1979 Act's protection can only be extended to something which has been consciously fashioned or made. Sites which reflect patterns of behaviour (like Boxgrove), or contain evidence of the impact of people on the environment (like peat bogs or caves, see letters) fall outside this definition. Redefinition of `a monument' would be one of the most useful things that the Culture Secretary could now do. While he is at it, he should introduce a concept of setting into the Act - not simply in terms of appearance, but also in terms of sub-surface context, to extend some degree of control to works in the vicinity of a scheduled area, like drainage, which are not covered by planning or ancient monuments legislation, but which could damage associated evidence, or indeed the monument itself.
And Part 2? Passé it may be, but the few towns which have it rather like it. It is the only area designation that British archaeology currently has. Rather than scrap it, the better plan would be to adapt it for areas and processes to which the stringencies of ancient monument control cannot extend.
Whether such modest reforms could find an early place on New Labour's agenda is doubtful. If they don't, we can only reflect on the irony of a Cult of the New which saddles us with geriatric legislation for at least another five years, and tolerates unnecessary attrition of the only environment which Britain has.
Richard Morris is the Director of the CBA
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1998