Planning Policy Frameworks and Legal Requirements
Archaeology plays a crucial role in the United Kingdom’s planning and development process. Whenever a new building project or infrastructure is proposed, there is a system in place to ensure that any buried heritage is identified, studied, and preserved or recorded. This process involves multiple stages, from initial planning policy considerations through excavation, analysis, and sharing of results. However, the system can be complex and fragmented, differing slightly between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Before any digging begins, the requirement to consider archaeology is rooted in planning policy and law. Each UK nation has its own planning policy framework that integrates archaeological heritage considerations into the development control process:
England: The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the obligation to protect and investigate heritage assets. Local planning authorities must ensure that if a development will harm archaeological remains, the harm is justified and mitigated.
In fact, NPPF (2021) §194 directs authorities to “require the developer to record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage asset before it is lost”, and to make this evidence publicly accessible (e.g. deposit reports in the Historic Environment Record and archives in a museum). This means archaeology is a material consideration in granting planning permission. The principle established since the early 1990s is preservation in situ of important remains where feasible, or otherwise preservation by record (excavation and documentation).
Scotland: Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) has similar provisions. Planning authorities in Scotland are expected to protect archaeological sites as a finite resource and preserve them in situ wherever possible, per SPP 2014 paragraph 150. If preservation on-site isn’t feasible, developers must undertake “appropriate excavation, recording, analysis, publication and archiving” before or during development.
In other words, much like in England, a developer-led excavation can be required by condition to ensure no knowledge is lost. Additionally, Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) and Planning Advice Note 2/2011 (“Planning and Archaeology”) reinforce these expectations, emphasizing early consideration of archaeology in planning. Scotland’s legal framework (Ancient Monuments Legislation) is administered by Historic Environment Scotland (HES), which also serves as a statutory consultee on certain applications (for example, HES must be consulted if a development might affect a scheduled monument or its setting).
Wales: Planning Policy Wales (PPW) and Technical Advice Note 24: The Historic Environment (2017) guide how archaeology is handled in Welsh planning. Like elsewhere, the ethos is to avoid or minimize impacts on significant archaeological sites.
Under the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016, each local authority area in Wales has a Historic Environment Record that must be kept up to date and publicly accessible. The Welsh Ministers (through Cadw, the national heritage service) work with, what used to be, four regional Archaeological Trusts (now merged into one) to maintain these records. Local planning authorities consult Cadw (on behalf of Welsh Ministers) for any planning application that might affect a scheduled archaeological site (a site of national importance protected under law). In practice, the newly combined four Archaeological Trusts (Glamorgan-Gwent, Clwyd-Powys, Dyfed, and Gwynedd) play a key role in Wales: they act as archaeological advisors to local councils, reviewing planning applications, identifying potential archaeological issues, and even writing briefs for required investigations. The Welsh planning policy also favors preservation in situ for important remains and requires excavation and recording if a site must be disturbed, mirroring the “preservation by record” principle found across the UK.
Northern Ireland: Northern Ireland’s planning system also embeds archaeology through policy and law, though it has its own terminology. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS 2015) and the earlier Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage, 1999) set out that archaeological sites should be protected or investigated. The Department for Communities’ Historic Environment Division (HED) is a statutory consultee for local councils on archaeological matters. HED maintains the Historic Environment Record of Northern Ireland (HERoNI) which planners and developers consult for known sites.
Like elsewhere, in situ preservation of significant sites is prioritized. If development is allowed to impact a site, conditions are applied to ensure excavation and recording take place in advance. HED has published guidance to standardize archaeological work in the planning process across NI, emphasizing that various forms of archaeological work (from surveys to excavations) may be required as part of planning applications or prior to construction. Legal protection for the most important sites comes from the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (NI) Order 1995 (similar to the UK Ancient Monuments Act).
Initial Planning & Local Engagement
The archaeological process typically begins as soon as a development is conceived and enters the planning stage. A developer or landowner proposing a project must address archaeology as part of obtaining planning permission. This involves engaging with local government and heritage advisors early on:
Consulting the HER and Advisors: In all UK regions, the first step is to check the local Historic Environment Record (HER) for known archaeological sites or find spots on or near the development site. This database search can reveal if, for example, a Roman road is thought to run through the area or if previous finds were reported nearby. Local authority archaeologists (or their equivalents, like the Welsh Trust officers or HED in NI) are typically involved at this stage. They identify whether a site has potential archaeological sensitivity. For instance, if planning an extension in a historic town center, the council’s archaeologist might note that the property lies above medieval remains recorded in the HER.
Heritage Statements and Impact Assessments: Depending on the project size and location, the developer may need to submit a heritage statement or an archaeological desk-based assessment with their planning application. This is especially true for large projects or those in archaeologically rich zones. In Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) developments (like major infrastructure or wind farms), a cultural heritage chapter is required by law, assessing archaeological impacts. For example, a new road scheme might require an Environmental Statement detailing known archaeology and plans to handle it. The planning authority uses this information to decide if permission can be given and under what conditions.
Planning Consultation: Local planning authorities routinely consult heritage bodies when an application comes in. In Northern Ireland, as noted, district councils must consult HED for proposals that might affect recorded heritage assets. In Wales, any application affecting a scheduled monument or a registered historic landscape triggers consultation with Cadw. In England and Scotland, if a proposal affects a nationally important site (like a Scheduled Monument or a listed building), Historic England or HES may be consulted as well. Even for unscheduled archaeology, the planning case officer will seek advice from their in-house or contracted archaeologist. At this stage, one of two paths will emerge: either it is decided that the development is unlikely to harm significant archaeology (no further action), or it is clear that further investigation is needed before proceeding.
Planning Conditions: In cases where archaeological remains are suspected, planning authorities often attach conditions to any approval. A typical planning condition (seen across the UK) might say no development can start until a program of archaeological work is completed and reported. This ensures that the developer cannot simply ignore archaeology. It legally ties the requirement to planning permission. Such conditions implement the “preservation by record” approach described in policy. They usually require the developer to fund whatever work is necessary.
For instance, a condition might require a watching brief (archaeological monitoring during groundworks) or a full excavation to be done and it must be detailed in a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) approved by the authorities.
ArchNova’s Role in Planning
We’ve repeatedly stressed that, at ArchNova, we want archaeologists to be able to work on the exciting and engaging parts of archaeology. The very first steps of the archaeological process here in the planning stage are some of the most important but also some of the most complicated to manage.
Our next post will focus on the documentation that comes out of this and the next steps with Desk Based Assessments and initial Field Evaluations and Surveys. We wanted to give non-archaeologists (and many archaeologists) a glimpse into the complicated structures that many commercial archaeologists need to navigate when working in the field. We also want to push focus onto the complexity of a system that manages archaeology and heritage that does not follow those modern systems. So much, in fact most, of our heritage and history occurred before these rules and regulations were in place. Ancient and historical groups stretched across various counties and country boundaries, giving no care to the future work that will need to be done to preserve such heritage.
We want to recognize that there are major issues with our current frameworks, but we also want to give archaeologists the tools to meet the highest standards possible. In doing so, we want to ensure mobility in archaeological work, whether you’re working in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland or any other country in the world. That starts with simple automation and AI that can support the complexity of these systems.
Stay tuned for next week’s post on the exciting documentation of Written Schemes of Investigation!
