Ensuring Archaeology in the Planning System Delivers Public Benefit

Abstract

Archaeologists in the UK work in a variety of structures, but all archaeology is for the benefit of the public. Since 1990 the majority of archaeological work has been undertaken as part of the planning process. A complex system has evolved which attempts to deliver wider public benefit. There are differences between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the underlying principles are broadly the same across the UK. In 2020 radical changes were proposed to the planning system in England which could potentially impact on both the archaeological profession and the public benefits it generates. This paper outlines the evolution and operation of the current UK system with particular reference to England, and highlights some changes that the new proposals could make to the status quo. Some structural issues are highlighted which will need to be overcome for archaeologists to improve things for themselves and for the society they serve in the future.

Value from Development-Led Archaeology in the UK: Advancing the Narrative to Reflect Societal Changes

“…In the UK the development-led sector is often buoyant, yet always reliant on the churn of construction and development. Latest figures record the UK archaeological sector as being worth £258 m per year, with the sector providing up to 5300 jobs (approximately four-fifths of all archaeological employment) [19] (p. 3) with 73% of its funding sourced directly from the private sector, with a significant 34% originating from housebuilding although transport infrastructure projects increasingly provide a significant proportion [20] (p. 20; Table 20) and notably, these are funded through direct taxation. These publicly funded projects are assessed in relation to the Public Value Framework, which requires a cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken on all spending.…”

“…Within the UK development-led system, the planning curatorial teams of the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (ALGAO) produced a guide in collaboration with the NHLF to remind applicants of their obligation to consider that archaeological outcomes are appropriately considered [17], and they have voiced their support for meaningful provision of public benefit through the planning system, framed as "economic development, regeneration, learning, leisure, tourism and local distinctiveness" [21] (p. 2). Including specifically public-facing planning conditions and other statutory expectations that require developers and archaeological contractors to incorporate public engagement into a standard project design remains largely the preserve of individually supportive ALGAO members, although with changes in the planning system this might change [19]. The key concept behind the value of directly impacted archaeology in this system, however, remains that of knowledge creation and the requirement to transfer the buried archaeological remains into knowledge through the stipulation of mitigation and thereby excavation or other forms of recording [7].…”

“…Even highly technical practices taking place at early stages of project development such as borehole sampling can draw in a wide community of interest if an open approach is taken to this potential [41]. Belford [19] (p. 19) acknowledges the dichotomy between professionalised practice and its potentially exclusionary behaviours and we can expand this idea further to conclude that the need to provide benefit for communities and the fact that these two things may not be the same; if a very local impact is required the national frameworks will not be the best way to provide this. This is where the central challenge of this volume can be tackled, by bringing in other value frameworks to ensure that these two (potentially conflicting) interests are taken into account on an equal footing.…”

Values-Led Design Cards: Building Ethically Engaged Archaeology and Heritage Experiences

“…A review of mission and policy statements of archaeological professional organisations, heritage agencies and university departments, including the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists' recently published information sheet on Delivering Public Benefit from Archaeology [12] readily evidences a sense of self-conscious awareness of archaeological practitioners' responsibility for public value. This active foregrounding of archaeology's relevance to contemporary society's needs, its social impacts, and potential for wider public and environmental benefit is likewise reflected in, and simultaneously promoted by, a growing body of critically reflective scholarship which explicitly discusses archaeology's wider context, e.g., [13][14][15][16][17][18]. This positioning is furthered through the close links between archaeology and heritage, which directly wire the presentation of archaeological evidence, interpretations, and ideas into contemporary issues of identity politics, power, ownership and sustainability.…”

Cuando el futuro corre más deprisa que nosotros. Reflexiones en torno a los diez años de El futuro de la arqueología en España

“…Inmediatamente, las críticas llovieron de algunos de los frentes de la profesión, desmarcándose en las redes sociales de la referencia que el informe hace a sus aportaciones (FAME o CIfA, por mencionar dos de las principales plataformas profesionales del Reino Unido, se quejaban de que sus comentarios no han sido tenidos en cuenta en el informe publicado). Desde el sector se ha sido perfectamente consciente de la situación (por ejemplo, Trow 2016; Wills 2018) y el esfuerzo por mejorarla es constante pese a los envites de las nuevas normas de planeamiento (Belford 2020). En un contexto que siempre se ha mostrado como modelo de éxito más allá de las críticas por su marcada tendencia neoliberal (Zorzin 2015;, empezar a leer reflexiones sobre la raíz de los problemas que sufre el sector -también allí-da a la vez una sensación de esperanza y desasosiego.…”