On Archaeology, Planning and Sites and Monuments Records

The Heritage Green Paper Protecting Our Heritage, issued this summer by the Department of National Heritage, takes forward the concept that archaeology is a material consideration in planning and, by implication, that safeguarding the past is an integral part of sustainability. PPG 16, issued in 1990, recognized that archaeological remains constitute a "finite, non-renewable resource" but PPGs are Planning Policy Guidance and do not have full statutory force. Now for the first time it is proposed to make Sites and Monuments Records a statutory local authority responsibility and also to require local planning authorities to consider the archaeological implications of development proposals. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:

4.13 At present all county councils in England maintain a 'sites and monuments record' (SMR) - an inventory of local archaeological features going well beyond the national list of scheduled sites and providing the main source of archaeological information at the local level, for example, for development planning and development control purposes. At present there is no statutory basis for these SMRs and no duty to maintain them. The re-organization of local government, and the demise of some county councils, could pose a threat to the continued maintenance of the SMR. The Royal Commission on the Historical Monument of England, which coordinates the work of local SMRs, has represented strongly that authorities should be placed under a duty to maintain them. The Government agrees with this view and proposes to introduce such a duty...

4.21 PPG16 and Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy make clear that the desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled. The Government considers this requirement is of fundamental importance and should be given statutory expression in the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) ...

It is appropriate therefore to review the situation in Kent. Canterbury City Council largely utilizes the Canterbury Archaeological Trust for archaeological planning advice but for all the other Districts and the County itself the Heritage Conservation Group within the Planning Department of the County Council provide an archaeological service both in providing specialist archaeological input on planning applications and in maintaining the Sites and Monument Record.

In addition to myself, as County Archaeologist, there is a team of three archaeologists who each take responsibility for a part of the County (Lis Dyson: Dartford, Gravesham, Rochester, Gillingham and Swale; Paul Newman: Dover, Thanet and any issues for Canterbury; Wendy Rogers: Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling, Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone, Ashford and Shepway). Our Records Officer, David Eve, is an experienced industrial archaeologist. Each year there are about 20,000 planning applications or the like (proposals from statutory undertakers, woodland grant applications etc). The relevant planning authority works from the constraints maps which we have prepared and refers to us any applications lying within Areas of Archaeological Potential which we have defined as well as any application above an acre in size. This reduces the number of 'applications' to be examined in more detail to about 1,000, which is still a sizeable number.

Advice is given by the team which can range from a recommendation for refusal on archaeological grounds in a very few cases to 'no comment'. In between there can be a recommendation for a program of formal archaeological excavation or a more restricted 'watching brief'. There are cases where, based on existing knowledge it is not possible to gauge satisfactorily the impact of the proposed development, beyond recognizing that archaeology is clearly an issue, and in such cases archaeological evaluation can be required prior to the determination of the application by the local planning authority. The advantage of this is that the need for redesign to safeguard important archaeological features can be looked at at the time of the more general consideration of the application: archaeological mitigation can be properly integrated into any decision making.

In many respects the cornerstone for the archaeological advice system is the Sites and Monuments Record. The Kent Record is a fully computerized system based on the National Monuments Record of the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments. Data are arranged in 'fields' according to site location, but also according to type, period, form etc and thus it is possible to recall data by key words relating to individual and multiple fields. Over the past two years we have also been collaborating with the Commission in developing a maritime Sites and Monuments Record for the County and this too is now largely operational. With Kent having the longest coastline of any English shire county and with reputedly more wrecks off its coast this is an important asset.

While the primary purpose of Sites and Monuments Records has been to help planning departments to assess the archaeological implications of development they are also most important research tool. As such the Kent SMR is open for public consultation and indeed we have a regular stream of enquirers. Access is subject to two conditions: firstly we need to be assured that the release of information will not result in damage to archaeological sites and secondly an appointment has to be made. This is because we have limited space available for consultation and a booking system is therefore essential. Anyone wishing to consult the SMR should arrange an appointment with David Eve or Miriam Tressider on 01622 696096.

A particularly interesting development has been the transfer of the land-based record into the Planning Department's GIS (Geographical Information System). The archaeological data, along with other planning data, can now be displayed graphically on OS maps on computer screen. It is possible to zoom in and out, thereby seeing the data at different scales on the screen and other planning data, for example those relating to the natural environment, can be superimposed. At the present time the system is in a state of development but as more 'layers' are added to the GIS data the more useful the system will become. The further development of GIS is a most exciting prospect.

John Williams,
Head of Heritage Conservation, KCC Planning