1. 1
ARC 3600
21ST
CENTURY HERITAGE WHITE PAPER IN CONTEXT
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
MAY 7, 2010
ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT
Module Convenor: Dr. Oliver Creighton

2. 2
Today we live in what is known as a historical environment. It tells us about who
we are and where we have came from. Heritage can be both tangible and intangible.
There is no single definition for heritage that is adequate or all-encompassing; it is
defined be perspective. Heritage can be portrayed through sites, buildings, and
landscapes. It is all remains and objects and any other traces of mankind from past
epochs. A legislative system is needed to provide a designation system that records,
manages, and maintains everything that is ‘heritage’. The White Paper also known as the
Heritage Protection for the 21st
Century is the system that is going to be implemented in
order to protect and sustain the essential heritage for us today and for future generations
(Century: Heritage White Paper 2007, 6). In this paper, I will examine the key points in
this new legislative framework known as the White Paper. I will produce a response from
an archaeological viewpoint investigating problematic areas in the White Paper. Using
case studies I will also demonstrate areas where this future legislation might be put into
practice.
Legislation for the protection of archaeological sites in the United Kingdom was
first enacted in 1882. It was produced to protect heritage from things like construction,
building of roads, farming, afforestation, and erosion. The identification of sites for
protection since then has not kept pace with the increasing knowledge of the
archaeological resource or the changing perceptions of what might constitute a
“nationally important” monument (Starting 1992: 201). For example Castle Crags Iron
Age Univallate Hillfort in Bampton, Cumbria (Heritage Gateway: Lake District National
Park HER) and The Radar Training Station in Fleetwood, Lancashire (Heritage Gateway:
Listed Buildings Online) are both designated sites of importance. These two sites
demonstrate completely different perceptions of what Heritage is and how the idea of
heritage has changed over time. At present the United Kingdom’s legislative framework
consists of an act known as The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act of
1979 (Office of Public Sector Information 2010). This act is made up of listing,
scheduling, and registering of the historical environment. These three separate systems
used to deal with the different aspects of the historic environment are ran separately from
each other by a range of professionals. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport are responsible for designating buildings and ancient monuments such as Poltimore

3. 3
House in Devon and Suet Hills round barrow cemetery in Cambridgeshire. English
Heritage designates parks, gardens, and battlefields such as Halswell Park in Somerset
and Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire (Heritage Gateway: Listed Buildings Online) and
UNESCO is responsible for inscribing World Heritage sites such as Stonehenge in
Somerset (Century: Heritage White Paper 2007, 17).
Archaeological heritage is a finite and non-renewable resource. Over the past two
centuries many problems have arose from this legislation
such as, preserving monuments in the face of constant
pressures from farming, industry, and commerce (Darvill
1987: 1). For example, Flint Castle located in North Wales
faces encroaching industrial pressures as the city continues
to build and construct around it (WebCT 2010). Table 1
shows the number and percent of heritage assets at risk
nationally (English Heritage 2009, 5). The Act of 1979 has
more demerits than merits and this is why a new system of
heritage protection for the 21st
century has been produced. Tessa Jowell (see Fig. 1) the
Secretary of State for Cultural, Media and Sport and Alun Pugh (see Fig. 2) the Minister
for Culture, Welsh Language and Sport describe, “The White Paper responds to the
public call for change. It sets out the vision for the new heritage protection system based
on a unified historic environment.” This vision will enable a simpler and more efficient
system. Heritage protection will be aimed more at the greater public’s involvement as
well as being an integral part of a planning system that delivers sustainable communities
(Century: Heritage White Paper 2007, 5).
The revisions that will occur in the present legislation due to the White paper are
aimed to preserve and protect the English Heritage of the
21st
century. The future designation system will involve a
unified legislative framework. This will remove
distinctions in the current system and provide a new system
that will work for the whole historic environment. This
revised system will include a single system for national
designation and encourage unification at a local level. As a

4. 4
result the process of designation will be more efficient and faster and will provide
detailed selection criteria. This is not the case when looking at the selection criteria for
the Plymouth Civic Center in Plymouth, England (see Fig. 3). According to English
Heritage it was listed for its innovated design and fine internal decoration that is rich in
artwork (English Heritage: Plymouth Civic Center). Bureaucracy in the system will be
reduced by joining up and streamlining the consent processes. Additionally, existing lists
and schedules will be replaced by a new unified register. The public will also have better
access to information about the system and why things are protected (Century: Heritage
White Paper 2007, 7).
Problems will arise during the implementing process and the revisions will prove
to be challenging. The common agreeable factor concerning future heritage is that a new
system for designation needs to be put into effect. The White Paper’s main aims are to
develop a unified approach to the historic environment, to maximize opportunities for
inclusion and involvement, and to support sustainable communities by putting the historic
environment at the heart of an effective planning system (Smith and Waterton 2008,
201). Although the White Paper demonstrates many positive revisions to the current
designation system, there are many crucial problem areas that have not been discussed.
Many of the proposed changes that are presented in the White Paper are laudable
and useful attempts at streamlining and clarifying the management and protection

5. 5
process. The problem is that many of these proposed changes operate at the rhetorical
level only. It fails to adequately address social inclusion/exclusion issues in the cultural
sector by not challenging the understanding of ‘heritage’ and attendant cultural values
and meanings (Smith and Waterton 2008, 197). If the understanding of heritage is not
described more thoroughly the list of designations will become significantly broad. This
will create major diversity in designation decisions. Defining heritage will help prevent
future designation problems in relation to the changing of time and definition of culture.
For example in present designation ranges from bus benches in Yattendon, Berkenshire
to Bollards in Carrick, Cornwall and a penguin pool in Regent Park (WebCt 2010) . The
white paper seems to illustrate the new system as being suggestive or based on procedural
change only. In a sense it seems as if the proposed selection revisions are only going to
clarify the old system and make it easier to understand rather than actually altering it in
any significant way. This portrays the White Paper as more of a tool for social and
cultural assimilation rather than for inclusion (Smith and Waterton 200, 201). It does not
go far enough in recognizing the social, economic, and sustainability benefits of historic
environment conservation in terms of both environmental and cultural sustainability
(IHBC, RICS & RTPI 2007, 8).
The White Paper’s focus remains on the narrow procedural changes such as
integration of archaeological processes into current practice, and the recognition in that
sector of the role of pre-application discussion. Heritage protection will take more than a
few narrow procedural changes, it will depend on a joined up government as well as a

6. 6
joined up historic environment. Effective management of Heritage will result from the
integration of the positions within the departments responsible for planning, local
government, environment, and fiscal policy (IHBC, RICS & RTPI 2007, 8). The White
Paper also fails to fully discuss what heritage’s role will be in successful development
and regeneration (Heritage Link. 2007). The three main aims of The Heritage White
Paper cannot be achieved in isolation or by the DCMS alone (RTPI, IHBC, RICS, RIBA,
POS & CIOB 2008,) If the historic environment is to be at the heart of the planning
policy, not only at the nation level but also by local authorities and through the RDA’s,
then there has to be a joining up of the government including the Heritage Management
Treasury (RTPI, IHBC, RICS, RIBA, POS & CIOB 2008).
There are three key issues that need to be examined more carefully and better
explained in the White Paper. These issues are the three most significant revisions
proposed. They are designation; heritage
protection and planning; and historic
environment services at the local level
(Guildford Government)The proposal for
designation will aim to create a unified
designation system for a unified historic
environment. This will include a single
system for national designation to replace
listing, scheduling, and registering. This will
help to avoid unclear and difficult
designation decisions such as the case of
Rougemont Castle in Exeter, England (see
Fig. 5). Rougemont Castle is a listed and
scheduled monument, this just complicates
the register and records of England and
provisions of each are often disapplied
(Planning Services: Exeter City Council
2005). All of the national designation
decisions will be made on the basis of

7. 7
special architectural, historical, and archaeological interest. New national and local
detailed selection criteria will be published in hopes of making designation decisions
easier to understand. National designation will be made my English Heritage but the
public will be involved in shaping the program. A new register of Historic Buildings and
Sites of England and Wales will be created to replace existing lists and schedules. A new
consultation and appeal process will be produced along with interim protection for
historic assets. These changes to the system will deliver faster designation decisions
(Century: Heritage White Paper 2007, 9).
With these proposed changes, comes numerous concerns. Who will be responsible
for holding the new Historic Assets Record (HAR)? Where do local designations such as
conservation areas and local lists fit into the concept of a single HAR? How and when
will the current lists and schedules be reviewed to produce single entries in the new
HAR? Who will implement such reviews and how will they be resourced (Guildford
Government, 1)? The records themselves today are highly variable, ranging from a few
sentences from some listed buildings to extensive surveys, photographs, and maps, for
scheduled monuments. It seems as if English Heritage has a vision of the future
legislation and what it will accomplish but they have forgotten to included in the White
Paper the nuts and bolts of how to get there.
The second major revision will be to support sustainable communities by putting
the historic environment at the heart of an effective planning system. This will involve
streamlining regulation by merging the Listed Building Consent and the Scheduled
Monument Consent. Introducing greater flexibility into the system through new statutory
management agreements for historic sites. To reduce uncertainty and ensure
consideration of heritage issues through the greater role of pre application discussion.
Strengthen and clarify protections for World Heritage Sites and enhance protection for
archaeological remains on cultivated land. Places like Gloucestershire that contain many
scheduled monuments such as long barrows are at high risk due to cultivation (English
Heritage Monuments at Risk: Southwest). To provide local planning authorities with new
tools to protect locally designated buildings from demolition (Century: Heritage White
Paper 2007, 9). Major concerns with these revisions included the unification of consents
into one, called Historic Asset Consent (HAC). These consents are to be determined by

8. 8
the local planning authority and this raises the issue of number and skills of staff. It has
yet to be decided which local authority will be best placed to determine HAC applications
(Century: Heritage White Paper 2007, 63). For example Exeter City Council will deal
with HAC applications in Exeter, England. When advising local planning authorities how
to protect designations from demolition the White Paper does not propose any additional
means of protecting such properties (Guildford Government, 3).
The third major revision involves the Historic Environment at local level. The
DCMS is aiming to promote a more joined up approach towards the heritage protection
system and to increase capacity at the local level (Guildford Government, 3). A new
policy guidance from English Heritage will be produced for the new legislation. A clear
statement on local authority and historic environment services and guidance on
performance will provided. English Heritage will implement a new program of training,
support, and capacity-building for local authorities and local heritage organizations.
Access to information about the local historic environment will be improved by a new
statutory duty on local authorities. They will maintain and have access to the Historic
Environment Record and the information systems will have wider e-government
programs, such as heritage gateway (see Fig. 6) (Century: Heritage White Paper 2007,
33).Will the new guidance integrate conservation and archaeology services in the
planning operations and corporate structures of the local planning authorities despite the
proposed comprehensive area assessment regime (The Civic Trust for Wales 2008)?

9. 9
These proposals need to be backed up with sufficient resources because it is not clear that
sufficient provisions have been made. It is unclear whether the government is likely to set
aside adequate resources to cover the implementation of these challenging proposals
(Guildford Government, 4).
The government’s intentions are positive in hopes that these reforms will put the
heritage protection on a sound footing for the future. However, if this new system of
legislation is not thoroughly thought through and implemented correctly than their may
be serious complications in the protection system. The biggest problems the new
legislation faces is lack of resources, both financial and professional, and the transition
between the old and new systems. They will have to operate in tandem for a significant
period of time thus it is imperative more detailed thought be given to the transition and
implementation processes (IHBC, RICS & RTPI 2007, 30). Problems will arise no matter
what but the demand and crucial need for a new unified system of designation will be
worth the struggle if the English Heritage is to be preserved and Protected.

10. 10
Bibliography
Darvil, T. 1987: Ancient Monuments in the Countryside: An archaeological management
review. Nottingham: Historic buildings and Monuments Commission for England.
DCMS [Department for Culture, Media and Sport] 2007: Heritage Protection for the 21st
Century: Heritage White Paper. (1-71)
(http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/historic_environment/4171.aspx)
[accessed 8th
of March 2010].
English Heritage 2009: English Heritage at Risk 2009. London: English Heritage.
English Heritage Monuments at Risk: Southewest (http://www.english-
heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/smr-sw-acc-web-final.pdf?1239780090) [accessed 1st
May 2010].
English Heritage: Plymouth Civic Center
(http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11365) [accessed
2nd
May 2010].
Guildford Government Heritage Protection for the 21st
Century-White Paper: Key Issues
And Proposed Response.(http://www.guildford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8FC3CAE0-
6398-4C03-A63B-A07B4A39D649/0/ResponseHeritageWhitePaper.PDF)
[accessed 2nd
May 2010].
Heritage Gateway: Lake District National Park HER
(http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1626803
&resourceID=801) [accessed 2nd
May 2010].
Heritage Gateway: Listed Buildings Online
(http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/) [accessed 2nd
May 2010].
Heritage Gateway: Listed Buildings Online
(http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=490148&
resourceID=5) [accessed 2nd
May 2010].
Heritage Link. 2007: Heritage Link Response to DCMS Heritage White Paper
Consultation. London: Heritage Link.
IHBC, RICS & RTPI. 2007: Response to the Heritage White Paper: Heritage Protection
for the 21st
Century. London: IHBC, RICS & RTPI.

11. 11
Office of Public Sector Information: Part of the National Archives 2010 Ancient
Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790046_en
_1) [accessed 6th
of March 2010].
Planning Services, Exeter City Council. 2005: Rougemont Castle: Supplementary
Planning guidance. Exeter: Crown Publishing.
RTPI, IHBC, RICS, RIBA, POS & CIOB. 2008: Response to The Draft Heritage
Protection Bill. England: The Heritage Protection Bill: A Joint Response.
Smith, L. and Waterton, E. 2008: Policy Review: Heritage Protection for the 21st
Century, Cultural Trends. J. 7; 3, 197-203.
Startin, B. 1992: The Monuments Protection Programme: Archaeological Records, in The
National Museum of Denmark, DKC (ed.), Sites & Monuments: National
Archaeological Records, Kobenhavn: Nationalmusset, 201-206.
The Civic Trust for Wales 2008 Heritage Protection White Paper: Response to
Consultation. (http://www.civictrustwales.org/prot_wp_jun07.html)
[accessed 1st
may 2010].
WebCT Exeter University 2010 Archaeology and Heritage Management: Lecture 2.