The National Planning Policy Framework and Archaeology: A Discussion

Ben Cowell

doi:10.5334/pia.397

Abstract

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) continues to divide opinion. This is especially the case in relation to heritage and the historic environment. On the one hand, the historic environment is given its own section in the document, and there is strong rhetoric around the importance of conserving unique heritage assets. On the other, aspects of the NPPF are a source of great concern, not least the so-called ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. The end of the transition year, in which local authorities are supposedly updating their local plans, will therefore be a crucial moment for determining the longer-term impact of the NPPF.

Highlights

For twenty years, ‘rescue’ archaeology and cultural resource management in England lived within the certain world of Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning (DoE 1990)
What does this new document mean for archaeology in England? The preliminary response provided by organisations like the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) and Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) has been a guarded welcome to the NPPF, perhaps influenced by a collective relief that the document continues to place a strong emphasis on the need to protect the historic environment, empowering local planners to work to this end1
The most obvious ‘pro’ of the NPPF is simple: heritage made it in! There were some fears during the early stages of drafting the NPPF that reference to the historic environment would be cut entirely in the new document, throwing us back into the ‘dark ages’ of the pre-1980s when ‘rescue’ archaeology meant doing your best under often impossible circumstances

Summary

Introduction

For twenty years, ‘rescue’ archaeology and cultural resource management in England lived within the certain world of Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning (the PPG) (DoE 1990). The preliminary response provided by organisations like the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) and Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) has been a guarded welcome to the NPPF, perhaps influenced by a collective relief that the document continues to place a strong emphasis on the need to protect the historic environment, empowering local planners to work to this end. The preliminary response provided by organisations like the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) and Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) has been a guarded welcome to the NPPF, perhaps influenced by a collective relief that the document continues to place a strong emphasis on the need to protect the historic environment, empowering local planners to work to this end1 The majority of the core concepts of PPS5 remain in force under the NPPF, and broadly, the underlying principles of protection of the historic environment through the planning system remain unchanged

Cons of the NPPF

Pros of the NPPF

Conclusion