Consultation responses: Scottish Planning Policy 23 (SPP 23): Planning and the Historic Environment (Scottish Government 2008)	Consultations index ALGAO:Scotland
Submission from ALGAO:Scotland Directorate for the Built Environment The Scottish Government, Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH6 6QQ. Dear Mr Dowell, Scottish Planning Policy 23 (SPP23) Planning and the Historic Environment ALGAO:Scotland represents Local Authority and National Park archaeological services in Scotland and is part of the UK-wide organisation, ALGAO:UK. We welcome this opportunity to comment upon this draft Scottish Government policy on Planning and the Historic Environment. We would like to offer the following comments and recommendations on draft SPP 23. The draft SPP sets out to provide a holistic response to the Historic Environment, consolidating existing NPPG5 & NPPG18 within a single policy document. As stated this new SPP proposes no major shift or change to policy but rather an opportunity to update the earlier documents to take into account the views expressed within the recent Scottish Historic Environment Policy Papers (SHEPs), the new Planning Act etc. In addition the document seeks to reflect the Scottish Government's recognition of the cultural contribution and economic benefits which the conservation and management of this national resource can make to the economy and sustainability objectives of both national and local Governments. This holistic approach and recognition of the importance of good sustainable management of this finite resource is welcomed. Nevertheless we have the following concerns, which potentially lessen the effectiveness of the management of the historic environment and archaeology. Local Authorities & Legislation A summary of the legislative background to the historic environment is given. Emphasis is placed on the role of local authorities in the protection and enhancement of the historic environment through development-management, and as owners and managers of historic assets. However, it is considered that this section is rather thin and unbalanced in discussing the role of local authorities, who are key to effective implementation of planning policy and legislation, in comparison with the prominence given to the roles of other bodies. It is recommended that this section be expanded with a cross-reference to paragraph 4 of SHEP1 and also PAN 42 which details the key role of the local authorities. Also less should be said about A+DS (simply refer to SPP20) and more about planning authorities. Furthermore, paragraph 6 gives Historic Scotland a wider role in respect of advice on policies and proposals which impact on the historic environment than their legislative powers would suggest is available to them. Their role does not extend to undesignated heritage assets and this should be clarified here. It is suggested that this paragraph be re-ordered, with the second sentence removed and replaced at the end of this paragraph with a clearer statement of the role of Historic Scotland in this regard. This section should also encourage local authorities to allocate appropriate, and sufficient, resources and personnel for the provision of specialist advice on the historic environment within the planning system, and should make clear reference to the existence of such personnel and their availability to offer interpretative advice. There are significant concerns that the statement contained in NPPG 5 'the preservation of ancient monuments and their setting is a material consideration...' has been amended within para 12 of SPP 23 to read 'undesignated heritage assets, such as archaeological remains, can be a material consideration in the planning process'. This is a weakening of the force of the previous advice and could lead to the loss of significant archaeological and historic assets. If, as stated in para 7 of the Strategic Environmental Assessment, the SPP is intended to be an amalgamation of existing policy, this apparent dilution of policy is not acceptable and it is strongly recommended that the wording is amended in the final SPP. This apparent weakening of advice is perhaps emphasised by the omission within the section on Historic Environment of a section on undesignated heritage assets, a section that implies that it is offering a holistic list of all the varying elements of the historic environment. Its omission from the draft SPP in terms of archaeological assets results in the serious under representation of the archaeological resource of which over 90% is not covered by any designation. It is recommended that an additional paragraph entitled "Archaeological Sites, Monuments and Areas of Historical Interest" (reflecting para 42 in Draft SPP23) is created between paragraphs 18 and 19 of the draft SPP, dealing specifically with undesignated assets and reflecting the text from paragraphs 17 & 18 of NPPG 5. In addition other Draft SPPs have been the subject of focus groups (e.g. SPP6 & SPP14). It is unfortunate and regrettable that the opportunity was not taken here to engage fully with practitioners in the local authorities and the sector at an early stage in the drafting process. It is therefore recommended that any proposed revision of the Memorandum of Guidance or of the two related Planning Advice Notes (42 & 71) be the subject of early discussions with ALGAO:Scotland and other key partners. Policy and Specialist Advice (paras 19-22) This section provides a brief summary of policy and discusses the importance both of the active management of the heritage resource and of informed change based on a clear understanding of any asset. However as currently drafted these paragraphs really only relate to buildings and take no account of the intrinsic value of other heritage assets both designated and undesignated. The majority of these may have no economic or commercial value and are extremely vulnerable to change and need to be carefully considered in the application of planning policy. Accordingly it is recommended that these paragraphs be reworded to widen their remit and be more inclusive with regard to all heritage assets. Further, whilst paragraph 21 advises correctly that Planning authorities should ensure that they can call on sufficient specialist conservation advice, it fails to specify the requirement for specialist archaeological advice. It is strongly recommended that this wording be corrected and in para 22 the wording should be similarly strengthened in terms of development plans. In addition paragraph 20 states, "in most cases, the historic environment can accommodate change". This is welcomed in terms of some types of historic environment assets. However NPPG 5 makes clear that the archaeological asset is finite and non-renewable, which makes it vulnerable to change. Preservation in situ is, therefore, the dominant message of NPPG 5 and this must be reiterated in SPP23. Structure Plans/Strategic Development Plans (Para 23) This section indicates that it is unlikely that it will be necessary to include specific policies on the historic environment in strategic development plans. It is considered that this is an unacceptable retrograde step in the active management of heritage assets being promoted elsewhere in the draft SPP and in the expression of Scottish Ministers' policies as outlined in the SHEPs. It is considered designated heritage assets of national importance should be included in such plans. It is recommended that strategic development plans include specific policies on the historic environment. Local plans (para, 24) The specified requirement for Local Plans to define the historic environment, establish detailed policies, management processes and action programmes is at variance with Government guidance which recommends that Local Plans should be focused and concise. An attempt to be all-inclusive in terms of historic assets would also result in the omission of unscheduled archaeology. Model Local Plan Policies (para 26 and Annex A) The SPP recommends model policies relating to heritage for inclusion in Local Plans. The perceived benefits are consistency; improved efficiency, resulting from potentially reduced time spent at public inquiry, and the sharing of best practice. However the concept of stringent adherence to model policies has also been criticised in terms of the need to adapt policies to reflect regional and local distinctiveness, and the possible reduction in local commitment to such model policies. Model Policies 1, 1A and 2, relating to development and demolition of listed buildings and in conservation areas, do not include any reference to the need for a developer to ensure that a historic building survey is undertaken of a structure which will be significantly altered or demolished, as is presently common practice. It is recommended that the wording of these policies be strengthened to include reference to this. The introductory paragraphs to Model Policy 3, relating to archaeology, should include reference to developers' responsibility to provide sufficient information about the archaeological impact of a proposed development to the planning authority, in order that the authority can make an informed determination of the planning application. The normal mechanism for this is an archaeological assessment and evaluation (per NPPG5 para. 25), Other Archaeological Sites (paras 42-45) In regards to the policy towards non-designated 'other' archaeological sites and monuments, and areas of historical interest (paras. 42 - 45) there are a number of significant changes between the draft SPP and NPPG5, which would tend to weaken the protection afforded to the historic environment. NPPG5 includes (at para 12) the important phrase 'they (local authorities) help safeguard the archaeological heritage through their development planning and development control functions'. This is omitted in the corresponding paragraph 43 of SPP 23. Given the importance of this phrase it is recommended that an equivalent statement be included in the list of powers and responsibilities of local authorities. Paragraph 45 does not make it clear that a Historic Environment Record (HER) or Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) must include an advisory capacity and is not merely an archive of records. Professional archaeological services are required to maintain, update and interpret the information contained in an HER/SMR in the light of individual threats to the historic environment, as without professional advice HER/SMRs are merely an archive of records. The need for this professional service is acknowledged in NPPG5 (paras. 8 & 9). A professional archaeological advice service to local authorities is essential to efficiently deliver appropriate input to the Planning and Development Management process. This omission must be rectified. The SPP recommends PASTMAP as a principal source of information on the historic environment. PASTMAP is a website maintained by Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) which provides a record of Listed Buildings and Ancient Monuments throughout Scotland. It is a useful website, but is not suitable for Development Management purposes and indeed the site contains a specific disclaimer to this effect. This section of the SPP should make clear the limitations of PASTMAP, and refer to the requirement to interpret the information provided by local authority archaeological and built heritage staff. The draft SPP also makes no mention of the possible roles that community, and non-statutory, organisations can have in safeguarding the historic environment. This is a significant omission, and the SPP should encourage local authorities to seek partnerships with other bodies, whenever feasible, to foster and secure better protection for the historic environment. Community partnership could have immense benefits for joint working and outcomes. Planning Conditions & Agreements (para 46) Paragraph 46, in discussion about the possibility of managing development impact on archaeological remains, requires clarification. It should be made clear that it is the developer's responsibility to organise and finance the necessary pre-determination assessment and evaluation to assess the impact of proposed works on any remains (as per NPPG 5 para. 25). It should also make explicit that it is the developer's responsibility to organise and fund any archaeological works required as a condition or section 75 agreement. We hope that our comments and recommendations are incorporated within the final document. ALGAO:Scotland would also be pleased to be involved at an early stage in the formulating of any revised version of PAN 42 or any other subsidiary guidance or advice that may be forthcoming. Yours faithfully, John A Lawson Chair ALGAO:Scotland Consultations index ALGAO:Scotland