1

ARC 3600

21ST

CENTURY HERITAGE WHITE PAPER IN CONTEXT

UNIVERSITY OF EXETER

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

MAY 7, 2010

ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

Module Convenor: Dr. Oliver Creighton

2

Today we live in what is known as a historical environment. It tells us about who

we are and where we have came from. Heritage can be both tangible and intangible.

There is no single definition for heritage that is adequate or all-encompassing; it is

defined be perspective. Heritage can be portrayed through sites, buildings, and

landscapes. It is all remains and objects and any other traces of mankind from past

epochs. A legislative system is needed to provide a designation system that records,

manages, and maintains everything that is ‘heritage’. The White Paper also known as the

Heritage Protection for the 21st Century is the system that is going to be implemented in

order to protect and sustain the essential heritage for us today and for future generations

(Century: Heritage White Paper 2007, 6). In this paper, I will examine the key points in

this new legislative framework known as the White Paper. I will produce a response from

an archaeological viewpoint investigating problematic areas in the White Paper. Using

case studies I will also demonstrate areas where this future legislation might be put into

practice.

Legislation for the protection of archaeological sites in the United Kingdom was

first enacted in 1882. It was produced to protect heritage from things like construction,

building of roads, farming, afforestation, and erosion. The identification of sites for

protection since then has not kept pace with the increasing knowledge of the

archaeological resource or the changing perceptions of what might constitute a

“nationally important” monument (Starting 1992: 201). For example Castle Crags Iron

Age Univallate Hillfort in Bampton, Cumbria (Heritage Gateway: Lake District National

Park HER) and The Radar Training Station in Fleetwood, Lancashire (Heritage Gateway:

Listed Buildings Online) are both designated sites of importance. These two sites

demonstrate completely different perceptions of what Heritage is and how the idea of

heritage has changed over time. At present the United Kingdom’s legislative framework

consists of an act known as The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act of

1979 (Office of Public Sector Information 2010). This act is made up of listing,

scheduling, and registering of the historical environment. These three separate systems

used to deal with the different aspects of the historic environment are ran separately from

each other by a range of professionals. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and

Sport are responsible for designating buildings and ancient monuments such as Poltimore

3

House in Devon and Suet Hills round barrow cemetery in Cambridgeshire. English

Heritage designates parks, gardens, and battlefields such as Halswell Park in Somerset

and Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire (Heritage Gateway: Listed Buildings Online) and

UNESCO is responsible for inscribing World Heritage sites such as Stonehenge in

Somerset (Century: Heritage White Paper 2007, 17).

Archaeological heritage is a finite and non-renewable resource. Over the past two

centuries many problems have arose from this legislation

such as, preserving monuments in the face of constant

pressures from farming, industry, and commerce (Darvill

1987: 1). For example, Flint Castle located in North Wales

faces encroaching industrial pressures as the city continues

to build and construct around it (WebCT 2010). Table 1

shows the number and percent of heritage assets at risk

nationally (English Heritage 2009, 5). The Act of 1979 has

more demerits than merits and this is why a new system of

heritage protection for the 21st century has been produced. Tessa Jowell (see Fig. 1) the

Secretary of State for Cultural, Media and Sport and Alun Pugh (see Fig. 2) the Minister

for Culture, Welsh Language and Sport describe, “The White Paper responds to the

public call for change. It sets out the vision for the new heritage protection system based

on a unified historic environment.” This vision will enable a simpler and more efficient

system. Heritage protection will be aimed more at the greater public’s involvement as

well as being an integral part of a planning system that delivers sustainable communities

(Century: Heritage White Paper 2007, 5).

The revisions that will occur in the present legislation due to the White paper are

aimed to preserve and protect the English Heritage of the

21st century. The future designation system will involve a

unified legislative framework. This will remove

distinctions in the current system and provide a new system

that will work for the whole historic environment. This

revised system will include a single system for national

designation and encourage unification at a local level. As a

4

result the process of designation will be more efficient and faster and will provide

detailed selection criteria. This is not the case when looking at the selection criteria for

the Plymouth Civic Center in Plymouth, England (see Fig. 3). According to English

Heritage it was listed for its innovated design and fine internal decoration that is rich in

artwork (English Heritage: Plymouth Civic Center). Bureaucracy in the system will be

reduced by joining up and streamlining the consent processes. Additionally, existing lists

and schedules will be replaced by a new unified register. The public will also have better

access to information about the system and why things are protected (Century: Heritage

White Paper 2007, 7).

Problems will arise during the implementing process and the revisions will prove

to be challenging. The common agreeable factor concerning future heritage is that a new

system for designation needs to be put into effect. The White Paper’s main aims are to

develop a unified approach to the historic environment, to maximize opportunities for

inclusion and involvement, and to support sustainable communities by putting the historic

environment at the heart of an effective planning system (Smith and Waterton 2008,

201). Although the White Paper demonstrates many positive revisions to the current

designation system, there are many crucial problem areas that have not been discussed.

Many of the proposed changes that are presented in the White Paper are laudable

and useful attempts at streamlining and clarifying the management and protection

5

process. The problem is that many of these proposed changes operate at the rhetorical

level only. It fails to adequately address social inclusion/exclusion issues in the cultural

sector by not challenging the understanding of ‘heritage’ and attendant cultural values

and meanings (Smith and Waterton 2008, 197). If the understanding of heritage is not

described more thoroughly the list of designations will become significantly broad. This

will create major diversity in designation decisions. Defining heritage will help prevent

future designation problems in relation to the changing of time and definition of culture.

For example in present designation ranges from bus benches in Yattendon, Berkenshire

to Bollards in Carrick, Cornwall and a penguin pool in Regent Park (WebCt 2010) . The

white paper seems to illustrate the new system as being suggestive or based on procedural

change only. In a sense it seems as if the proposed selection revisions are only going to

clarify the old system and make it easier to understand rather than actually altering it in

any significant way. This portrays the White Paper as more of a tool for social and

cultural assimilation rather than for inclusion (Smith and Waterton 200, 201). It does not

go far enough in recognizing the social, economic, and sustainability benefits of historic

environment conservation in terms of both environmental and cultural sustainability

(IHBC, RICS & RTPI 2007, 8).

The White Paper’s focus remains on the narrow procedural changes such as

integration of archaeological processes into current practice, and the recognition in that

sector of the role of pre-application discussion. Heritage protection will take more than a

few narrow procedural changes, it will depend on a joined up government as well as a

6

joined up historic environment. Effective management of Heritage will result from the

integration of the positions within the departments responsible for planning, local

government, environment, and fiscal policy (IHBC, RICS & RTPI 2007, 8). The White

Paper also fails to fully discuss what heritage’s role will be in successful development

and regeneration (Heritage Link. 2007). The three main aims of The Heritage White

Paper cannot be achieved in isolation or by the DCMS alone (RTPI, IHBC, RICS, RIBA,

POS & CIOB 2008,) If the historic environment is to be at the heart of the planning

policy, not only at the nation level but also by local authorities and through the RDA’s,

then there has to be a joining up of the government including the Heritage Management

Treasury (RTPI, IHBC, RICS, RIBA, POS & CIOB 2008).

There are three key issues that need to be examined more carefully and better

explained in the White Paper. These issues are the three most significant revisions

proposed. They are designation; heritage

protection and planning; and historic

environment services at the local level

(Guildford Government)The proposal for

designation will aim to create a unified

designation system for a unified historic

environment. This will include a single

system for national designation to replace

listing, scheduling, and registering. This will

help to avoid unclear and difficult

designation decisions such as the case of

Rougemont Castle in Exeter, England (see

Fig. 5). Rougemont Castle is a listed and

scheduled monument, this just complicates

the register and records of England and

provisions of each are often disapplied

(Planning Services: Exeter City Council

2005). All of the national designation

decisions will be made on the basis of

7

special architectural, historical, and archaeological interest. New national and local

detailed selection criteria will be published in hopes of making designation decisions

easier to understand. National designation will be made my English Heritage but the

public will be involved in shaping the program. A new register of Historic Buildings and

Sites of England and Wales will be created to replace existing lists and schedules. A new

consultation and appeal process will be produced along with interim protection for

historic assets. These changes to the system will deliver faster designation decisions

(Century: Heritage White Paper 2007, 9).

With these proposed changes, comes numerous concerns. Who will be responsible

for holding the new Historic Assets Record (HAR)? Where do local designations such as

conservation areas and local lists fit into the concept of a single HAR? How and when

will the current lists and schedules be reviewed to produce single entries in the new

HAR? Who will implement such reviews and how will they be resourced (Guildford

Government, 1)? The records themselves today are highly variable, ranging from a few

sentences from some listed buildings to extensive surveys, photographs, and maps, for

scheduled monuments. It seems as if English Heritage has a vision of the future

legislation and what it will accomplish but they have forgotten to included in the White

Paper the nuts and bolts of how to get there.

The second major revision will be to support sustainable communities by putting

the historic environment at the heart of an effective planning system. This will involve

streamlining regulation by merging the Listed Building Consent and the Scheduled

Monument Consent. Introducing greater flexibility into the system through new statutory

management agreements for historic sites. To reduce uncertainty and ensure

consideration of heritage issues through the greater role of pre application discussion.

Strengthen and clarify protections for World Heritage Sites and enhance protection for

archaeological remains on cultivated land. Places like Gloucestershire that contain many

scheduled monuments such as long barrows are at high risk due to cultivation (English

Heritage Monuments at Risk: Southwest). To provide local planning authorities with new

tools to protect locally designated buildings from demolition (Century: Heritage White

Paper 2007, 9). Major concerns with these revisions included the unification of consents

into one, called Historic Asset Consent (HAC). These consents are to be determined by

8

the local planning authority and this raises the issue of number and skills of staff. It has

yet to be decided which local authority will be best placed to determine HAC applications

(Century: Heritage White Paper 2007, 63). For example Exeter City Council will deal

with HAC applications in Exeter, England. When advising local planning authorities how

to protect designations from demolition the White Paper does not propose any additional

means of protecting such properties (Guildford Government, 3).

The third major revision involves the Historic Environment at local level. The

DCMS is aiming to promote a more joined up approach towards the heritage protection

system and to increase capacity at the local level (Guildford Government, 3). A new

policy guidance from English Heritage will be produced for the new legislation. A clear

statement on local authority and historic environment services and guidance on

performance will provided. English Heritage will implement a new program of training,

support, and capacity-building for local authorities and local heritage organizations.

Access to information about the local historic environment will be improved by a new

statutory duty on local authorities. They will maintain and have access to the Historic

Environment Record and the information systems will have wider e-government

programs, such as heritage gateway (see Fig. 6) (Century: Heritage White Paper 2007,

33).Will the new guidance integrate conservation and archaeology services in the

planning operations and corporate structures of the local planning authorities despite the

proposed comprehensive area assessment regime (The Civic Trust for Wales 2008)?

9

These proposals need to be backed up with sufficient resources because it is not clear that

sufficient provisions have been made. It is unclear whether the government is likely to set

aside adequate resources to cover the implementation of these challenging proposals

(Guildford Government, 4).

The government’s intentions are positive in hopes that these reforms will put the

heritage protection on a sound footing for the future. However, if this new system of

legislation is not thoroughly thought through and implemented correctly than their may

be serious complications in the protection system. The biggest problems the new

legislation faces is lack of resources, both financial and professional, and the transition

between the old and new systems. They will have to operate in tandem for a significant

period of time thus it is imperative more detailed thought be given to the transition and

implementation processes (IHBC, RICS & RTPI 2007, 30). Problems will arise no matter

what but the demand and crucial need for a new unified system of designation will be

worth the struggle if the English Heritage is to be preserved and Protected.

10

Bibliography

Darvil, T. 1987: Ancient Monuments in the Countryside: An archaeological management

review. Nottingham: Historic buildings and Monuments Commission for England.

DCMS [Department for Culture, Media and Sport] 2007: Heritage Protection for the 21st

Century: Heritage White Paper. (1-71)

(http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/historic_environment/4171.aspx)

[accessed 8th

of March 2010].

English Heritage 2009: English Heritage at Risk 2009. London: English Heritage.

English Heritage Monuments at Risk: Southewest (http://www.english-

heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/smr-sw-acc-web-final.pdf?1239780090) [accessed 1st

May 2010].

English Heritage: Plymouth Civic Center

(http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11365) [accessed

2nd

May 2010].

Guildford Government Heritage Protection for the 21st Century-White Paper: Key Issues

And Proposed Response.(http://www.guildford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8FC3CAE0-

6398-4C03-A63B-A07B4A39D649/0/ResponseHeritageWhitePaper.PDF)

[accessed 2nd

May 2010].

Heritage Gateway: Lake District National Park HER

(http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1626803

&resourceID=801) [accessed 2nd

May 2010].

Heritage Gateway: Listed Buildings Online

(http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/) [accessed 2nd

May 2010].

Heritage Gateway: Listed Buildings Online

(http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=490148&

resourceID=5) [accessed 2nd

May 2010].

Heritage Link. 2007: Heritage Link Response to DCMS Heritage White Paper

Consultation. London: Heritage Link.

IHBC, RICS & RTPI. 2007: Response to the Heritage White Paper: Heritage Protection

for the 21st Century. London: IHBC, RICS & RTPI.

11

Office of Public Sector Information: Part of the National Archives 2010 Ancient

Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790046_en

_1) [accessed 6th

of March 2010].

Planning Services, Exeter City Council. 2005: Rougemont Castle: Supplementary

Planning guidance. Exeter: Crown Publishing.

RTPI, IHBC, RICS, RIBA, POS & CIOB. 2008: Response to The Draft Heritage

Protection Bill. England: The Heritage Protection Bill: A Joint Response.

Smith, L. and Waterton, E. 2008: Policy Review: Heritage Protection for the 21st

Century, Cultural Trends. J. 7; 3, 197-203.

Startin, B. 1992: The Monuments Protection Programme: Archaeological Records, in The

National Museum of Denmark, DKC (ed.), Sites & Monuments: National

Archaeological Records, Kobenhavn: Nationalmusset, 201-206.

The Civic Trust for Wales 2008 Heritage Protection White Paper: Response to

Consultation. (http://www.civictrustwales.org/prot_wp_jun07.html)

[accessed 1st may 2010].

WebCT Exeter University 2010 Archaeology and Heritage Management: Lecture 2.