INVESTIGATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (Hansard, 18 July 1972)

§ Mr. Dick Taverne (Lincoln)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that the archaeological potential of a development site should be considered in applications for planning permission. I apologise to hon. Members for delaying them for a few more minutes before we turn to the important debate which is to follow.

The main aim of the Bill is to seek to prevent the destruction, with no record, of the archaeology of town centres. It seeks to implement one of the recommendations in an excellent but somewhat disturbing report prepared by the Council of British Archaeology, called, "The Erosion of History". In this country we face a paradox. On the one hand there is increasing public interest in archaeology, but because of the rapid redevelopment of towns, largely because of the needs of the motor car, on the other hand we face a situation in which, to quote the opening words of the introduction to the report, The physical evidence for the history of the British people is being destroyed on an immense scale, at an increasing pace, and often without record. The scale of the crisis is such that it is likely that in the next 20 years the archaeological value of about one-fifth of those historic towns which remain to us for study will be destroyed, and about two-fifths will be redeveloped in lesser ways. Essentially, the problem arises because present statutory requirements are inadequate. There are powers for local authorities to intervene to protect sites of archaeological interest, but the record shows that those powers are not sufficiently used. In towns, urban sites of archaeological interest are rarely scheduled because of the difficulties with occupied property of consulting and notifying a large number of property owners. But if a site is not listed there is no protection under the ancient monuments legislation. The archaeological potential need not be considered at any stage. Therefore, there is no effective protection for buried remains.

In many cases the potential is not considered because of ignorance. I can cite cases from my own constituency, where there was the urgent building of a new 420 police headquarters. When the land was transferred to the police authority, the new owners had no knowledge of what lay buried underneath. At some time later, a city archaeologist was appointed. By the time she investigated and the excavations were done, it was found that underneath lay possibly the finest stage of Roman defences in a modern occupied urban area. By then it was too late, because the design had been completed and the building had been costed. At least part of the remains, possibly the best part, will have to be covered up.

A report by the Chief Executive of Lincoln stated that the absence of a comprehensive policy for archaeology in the past had led to a number of missed opportunities. This should not happen again in Lincoln, and I hope that it will not happen again. It is a city with a uniquely rich historical past, as a Roman city, a Danish settlement, a mediaeval city and a city with major redevelopment planned.

Looking at the matter in general, we see that one of the remedies proposed by the Council for British Archaeology is what I seek to provide in the Bill. It would impose a statutory duty on all local authorities to find out whether there was an archaeological potential and then to consider it in granting planning permission. I am not asking that archaeological considerations should prevail, simply that they should be considered; and what happens can be left to the good sense of a planning authority. What is entailed by the duty to find out is that in some 800 or so historic towns there should be an archaeological town map if there is not one already. Where there is a resident archaeologist, this presents no difficulties.

In small towns and other places it may well seem difficult, but it may not be so because certainly the Council for British Archaeology could provide a town map of this kind in smaller places in about three or four weeks. There is no reason why a group of small towns should not band together to form a joint archaeological committee as the Council for British Archaeology is recommending. If this is done, say, within a period of three years, then the record of the past could be infinitely better safeguarded than it is at present.

It may be argued that this could mean delay, but this need not be so; it requires 421 only that there should be early consideration before plans have to be altered. We can see that this is so by the experience at Winchester where there has been the most extensive archaeological operation in the United Kingdom, if not in Europe in the last 11 years. Because of good relations with the local authority I understand that there has not been a single occasion of delay. Again, it might be said that there would be extra expense, but this need not be so, and in most cases the expense could be saved if the archaeological potential were considered at an appropriately early stage. If this were not so, it would be quite appalling if the very limited funds, or some of them, made available for archaeological excavation were spent on compensation. It would be particularly serious at a time when the amount which is being spent on archaeology is being reduced from what was envisaged at the start of the financial year. I hope, therefore, that this modest but important Bill is a proposal that commends itself to the House and that the House will give me leave to introduce it.