CELG(4) HIS 60
Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee
Inquiry into the Welsh Government’s Historic Environment Policy
Response from Headland Archaeology Ltd.
|
|
Unit 1, Premier Business Park, Faraday Road, Hereford HR4 9NZ T 01432 364 901 F 01432 364 900 |
Inquiry into the Welsh Government’s Historic Environment Policy
The following response is produced on behalf of Headland archaeology by Andy Boucher in the capacity of Regional Manager of the Midland’s and West Office. Andy has 15 years experience working at a high level on sites across Wales.
Appropriateness and success of current systems for PROTECTING and MANAGING the historic environment in Wales
Scheduled monuments
The
role of Cadw as a part of the Welsh Assembly enables a much more
rapid response to immediate threats than is the case in England.
Its position as part of the statutory body enables sites to be
scheduled at very short notice, sites to be investigated quickly
with very little or in fact no need for liaison with multiple
departments, and allows for variations to proposals that assist in
protecting monuments whilst at the same time keeping the costs of
related exercises to a minimum. As such any considerations for
change should not involve decentralising the role of any
organisation responsible for managing the historic environment, so
such considerations should in our view favour retention of such an
organisation within the Assembly, allowing it to retain its
statutory powers.
View – any future heritage organisation should retain statutory powers
Registered landscapes
The
current register is an innovative and potentially beneficial tool
for managing those portions of the historic environment so
designated. It has also become widely accepted as part of the
planning process and Assessments of Impact of Developments on
Historic Landscapes have become common place. Initial experience of
the current system demonstrated a rather “at arms
length” approach from Cadw relating to this. Whilst it is
appreciated that in cases where proposals are likely to be tested
at public inquiry Cadw does not wish to compromise its position in
such circumstances; there is a counter argument that some system
for consultation with a body responsible for overseeing heritage
might provide a more positive approach to the management of these
areas (i.e. organisations proposing developments in or adjacent to
those landscapes could get a good indication of likely resistance
to proposals early enough to avoid committing too great an expense
and being forced into a position where there is little option other
than to pursue that development option – thus increasing
threat to Welsh heritage).
View – a clearer method of consultation should be built into future policies and procedures
Registered parks and
gardens
Whilst these were produced at the same time as
the landscapes their treatment and status appears to be different
to that of the Landscapes. Cadw seems to have had much more
ownership of these than say the Landscapes (produced more in
conjunction with Countryside Council for Wales). Consideration
needs to be given to the essential settings relating to these, as
when tested at inquiry it would appear that these never anticipated
anything tall being built just outside of them and some clearer
definition would be appropriate.
View – review essential setting – particularly before considering statutory designation using the current format
Promotion of historic
environment
As an organisation we have not been heavily
involved with this aspect of the Welsh Government’s work.
Tie in of heritage and other policies (e.g.
regeneration)
In our experience there has been conflict
between heritage policies and regeneration etc. In many cases this
relates to sites of former industrial activity where land can be
obtained cheaply by potential developers, but which contain
considerable heritage value. The difficulty in these cases has been
a lack of funding on behalf of the government to put in place
better management of the land or powers to purchase it at
reasonable prices, commonly leaving vast derelict areas of
landscape with no use. Whilst not advocating wholesale destruction
of these areas of industrial heritage, on the other hand there
needs to be some means of securing a future of these sites or clear
policies and powers that might be put in place to assist owners
manage them.
View – tie in policies should consider the future of sites
Cadw and RCAHMW possible
merger
Advantages
With regard to the register on Historic Landscapes, by the nature
of the manner in which these landscapes have been published there
is likely to be a need to review them in the future both in terms
of their extent and number (new ones may come to light). Certainly
merging with RCHAMW would be beneficial here as the latter
organisation has wide skills and experience in Welsh
Landscapes.
The shared knowledge base in terms of maintaining databases of both designated and undesignated sites should enhance heritage protection through speeding up the means by which more valuable heritage assets might be identified for scheduling.
There is potential with the merger of both organisations and maintenance of a central database that resources could be better targeted to provide a central HER for the whole of Wales and also centralise planning advice, such as is the case for London with English Heritage.
Disadvantages
There is a potential risk that the fieldwork and survey roles of
the Commission would end up playing second fiddle to the more
statutory roles of Cadw and unless these were protected in any new
governing document then they might end up being cut further down
the line.
Local authorities and third sector
organisations
Currently Wales operates a system of Welsh
Archaeological Trusts who receive Cadw funding to operate
administrative functions. In practice it would appear that this
funding is in part used to cover management and overheads relating
to contracting arms of those organisations – or at least
there is no way of distinguishing where one funding stream stops
and the other starts. This system was established before the change
in planning policies in 1991 that saw the growth and development of
commercial archaeology (in its modern sense). There is a question
as to whether such a system is still tenable or at least best value
for money. There are plenty of organisations that could carry out
the contracting side of the archaeological work, and there seems
little point in funding multiple posts when, given the level of
development activity in Wales, such a function might be better
managed centrally.
View – were a merger between Cadw and RCAHMW considered, centralised control of the Welsh Trust’s administrative functions should also be considered.
Andy Boucher MIfA BSc (Hons)
Regional
Manager
Headland Archaeology – Midlands and West