Policy and Practice of London’s Historic Environment

ABSTRACT An original approach to understanding London – one of the world’s most prominent global cities – and its constant reform and modernisation of governance, planning and the historic environment through the first broad collection of social history. The past 40 to 50 years have seen successive governments attempt to resolve issues of governance, institutional structures and planning. The city, both in government and its institutions, is in a continuous state of flux – like many other global cities – and struggles with shifting boundaries of power as it attempts to strategically govern a range of social, economic, political and environmental challenges. The following paper evidences significant events that have influenced the shaping of planning and archaeology in London, and the organisations and legislation relevant to the practice of London archaeology in a unique way, enriching the basic skeletal history of legal frameworks and changing institutions with historical narratives offered by London archaeologists from a series of 55 in-depth interviews conducted between 2012 and 2013.

planning. For the first time the planning idea has suddenly become accepted as inevitable and necessary by large numbers of people belonging to all political parties and all classes of society.
The pillars of planning were to manage the process of urban development and protect heritage from unwanted change. 6 Frederic Osborn, Secretary of the Town and Country Planning Association at the time, also had similar sentiments that change was needed, stating: You've only got to look at where we went wrong in the past to see that it was always because we thought of one important thing and forgot others . . . after the last war we thought almost solely of a good family life and forgot about industry and community life. Development rights and their associated values were nationalised by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, as all development proposals would need to secure planning permission from their Local Planning Authority (LPA). 7 In 1947 Britain was ruled by a Left-wing Socialist government which in a number of Acts of Parliament set up the Welfare State in which the railways, coal, and electricity were nationalised, the National Health Service was set up, and crucially planning controls over land use were set up. In the 1947 Act, principal local authorities (i.e. London borough councils) were told to write Development Plans for all development in their area. It was expected that these councils would develop land for housing since any development by the private sector would be taxed at 100% thus making it unprofitable. In addition, the Government set up a compensation fund for landowners who thought that they might have had a realistic chance of building on land prior to 1947 before planning permission began. The assumption was that the system expected the public sector (i.e. local authorities) to be the main developers, not private. 8 One of the key objectives of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was to introduce a new planning system including new powers controls, which would overcome the defects of the previous system seen as 'too static; too localised; [and] placed no enforceable obligation on local planning authorities to prepare schemes. . .'. 9 The previous system was based on three Acts: The Town and Country Planning Act, 1932; the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943, which extended interim development control throughout the country and enabled the Minister to override decisions of Local Authorities; and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, that had granted power for re-planning and rebuilding areas damaged by the war or considered useless. Except for sections of the 1944 Act that were adopted into the 1947 Act, all other Acts were repealed with the introduction of the 1947 Act.
However in 1951 a Conservative Government was elected which slowly rolled back these socialist measures, and gradually private housing began again, but it was not until the 1960s that local council house building was overtaken by private housing.
During this time, the profession of archaeology was already in place, having started with the Ancient Monuments Act 1882, which not only appointed the first Inspector of Ancient Monuments, General Pitt-Rivers, to report to the Commissioners of Works, but meant that ancient monuments had finally been put under the protection of the government and began establishing a separation from antiquarianism, 10 which had already started to be a concern. The 1882 Act also scheduled the initial 68 sites across Great Britain, whether on private property or not. The Act was then modified in 1913, 1931 and 1953. 11 By the 1920s, Mortimer Wheeler, 12 who was appointed Keeper of the London Museum in 1926, commented that there were 'more than a couple of dozen professional archaeologists' posted in the British Museum, the Office of Works, the Royal Commissions, the Victoria County History and a few within universities mostly in other departments, and without supporting staff or laboratory facilities. 13 London as a leading city of development was seen as 'the fatal obstacle to adequate research into ancient London'. 14 As such, R.G. Collingdale (a leading authority on Roman Britain) had explained that 'the Commission's work on the study of Roman London [was] to look into the state of existing knowledge of all Roman remains' with 'no attempt to discover anything new' but to 'take all the material already at our disposal, arrange it, to think about it, and to try and make sense of it'. 15 Already at this time, archaeology was in the back seat to more important economic and political matters.
The Institute of Archaeology had been set up in 1937 with Sir Mortimer Wheeler as its first director. It was in fact 'one of Wheeler's many brainchilds' 16 which he began putting together with his wife, Tessa, from 1926. It is one of the 'major academic centres for archaeology in Britain', as well as one of the largest archaeological departments in the world, and 'from the outset, the importance of scientific techniques to the analysis of the past was seen as central and the focus throughout its history has largely been upon archaeological practice and technique. . .'. 17 The Institute's creation was a critical step for London archaeology. Sir Charles Peers, President of the Society of Antiquaries and Inspectorate of Monuments following General Pitt-Rivers, had said: British archaeology. . .is working under a very serious handicap, which may be stated briefly as lack of adequate funds and adequate facilities for research. The idea that the work is completed when the excavation of a site is finished and a report published is quite erroneous. . .[we] must have facilities for careful examination of them. . .To remedy that defect the Institute of Archaeology was founded. 18 Among the Institute's many mission statements was to 'play a major role in furthering the understanding of London's archaeological and historical past', 19 although it has been suggested by many local archaeologists that in recent decades the Institute has not been adequately fulfilling this role and that the role of academics may well be 'overplayed' in some contexts. 20 Before and for some time after World War II, Government funds were used for the first time to pay for archaeological excavations. 21 Archaeology was a 'public interest growing' with the number of archaeological posts increasing to 'four times as many. . .as there were before the war'. 22 Following the Institute of Archaeology's 'Conference on the future of archaeology' was held in 1943 and the Congress of Archaeological Societies' response to the exposure of archaeological remains after the war, the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) was set up to 'promote archaeology and co-ordinate research programmes and policy'. 23 The CBA gave the Society of Antiquaries the role of planning post-war investigation, which set up the Roman London Excavation Committee (later changed to Council) supported by the Ministry of Works, which appointed W.F. Grimes as supervisor of excavations. 24 Having tried to gain the support of the City Corporation, they sent their librarian to the Committee. That said, the Corporation did appoint a staff membera full-time excavation assistantto the Guildhall Museum in 1949.
'Shortage of cash and of bargaining power, and the decision to use only paid labour, conditioned the whole shape of the excavations' during the 1940s and 50s 25 : . . .there was a time when archaeologists were thrown off the site, were not allowed on London sites in the late 1950s and 60s, in case they held up the work programme. And this was central in London and certainly many sites were destroyed. This was something that held back the excavation of sites, let alone the certainty of the research of sites, publication. . . The Corporation of London did however allow archaeologists on site that they owned, and as it happens they own much of the City. So although the developers didn't like archaeologists on the site, the Corporation, if it insisted, could ensure that archaeologists got access to some sites, even if the developers themselves weren't prepared to pay for them. So from 1973 you had the government paying for archaeologists to work for a unit that could build its own agenda. So you have a budget of £100,000, you can do whatever you like, provided the Corporation could get you access to the site. 26 The 1960s And Rescue Archaeology By the 1960s, post-war redevelopment had waned and development was overtaken by private housing and accounted for 60% of all new housing. 27 With a forecast of a dramatic rise in population, the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was viewed as inefficient and a need for a new type of plan that would be more strategic and more useful for increased development, technologies and populations was emphasised (PAG report: Housing and Local Government, 1965). The Town and Country Planning Act 1968 was released (and quickly consolidated into the 1971 Town and Country Act).
Around this same time, under the London Government Act 1963, a new local government structure was created for London. This merged boroughs and districts to create the 32 boroughs and the City of London we have today (Figure 1). Boroughs were categorised into inner and outer boroughs, and a two-tier Local Government system, with the setting-up of the Greater London Council (GLC), was organised to govern the newly established Greater London. This led to the abolition of the former counties of Middlesex and London, and included the absorption of parts of Kent, Essex and Surrey, making up what is now Greater London. 28 The City of London continued as it was, governed under the City of London Corporation, and operating in a very different bubble to the rest of Greater London.
The GLC was an elected council to govern the new area of Greater London. The creation of the London County Council (LCC) in 1889 had been the start to a genuine metropolitan authority, which was responsible for a variety of services, but the London Government Act 1963 moved the power back into the hands of the London boroughs, and for the first time boroughs were responsible for the services in their patch. Despite moving power back to the boroughs, the reform had also set up the GLC. From the Act coming into effect in 1965 all the way to the GLC's abolition in 1986, a battle was played out debating quite explicitly whether London should be governed by a strong metropolitan authority or the boroughs, demonstrating how politics plays directly by whom or how planning is decided.
The GLC provided the archaeological service across a number of London boroughs where needed as not every borough had its own curatorial advisor. The City, Southwark, and Kingston were the exceptions.
The rise of the individual, public participation and community involvement made its way into the planning system, reflected in the Skeffington Report (1969), the first concerted effort to encourage participation in the decision-making process of planning. However, it was the Walsh Report that illustrated government's tensions with the explosion of private development. Regarding archaeology, the Report made a telling statement questioning the 'developer pays' principle that was being considered at the time: We examined a suggestion that the cost of "rescue" excavations should be charged statutorily to the developera course advocated on the Continent. . .we cannot support the suggestion because we believe that the British practice of providing for the conduct of excavations from public funds, or by the use of voluntary effort, is fairer in that the evidence they yield is to the public benefit. The alternative method is an incentive to concealment, and although this may occur at present to some extent, it is less likely to be widespread if the principle of willing agreement is adhered to. . .. . . .there are cases where the landowner or developer is not prepared to give the necessary facilities. . .we would stress the importance of good relationships with development contractors. . . 29 These two reports illustrate the paradigm of the time: participation, public benefit, and the notion that archaeological remains were of value and should not be left to destruction by profit-driven private developers. However, during the 1950s and 1960s development had become increasingly dependent on developers for funding. 30 Ministerial guidelines in Town Centres: Approach to Renewal issued by central government had realised: Renewal cannot be undertaken without public support and it cannot be carried through without private enterprise. There is increasing evidence of readiness by private developers to collaborate with local authorities. . . 31 While planning was juggling issues of public support and private funding, archaeology was concluding an era of post-war excavations that had been conducted by the Roman and Medieval London Excavation Council. With no new structure to take over from the Council, archaeological work was done on an ad hoc basis. 32 The Guildhall Museumthrough the excavation assistant of the time, Peter Marsden, had continued works with the help of volunteers; the Ministry of Public Building and Works did some excavations; and volunteers invaluably contributed. Some of those volunteers then formed the City of London Excavation Group, which became the City of London Archaeological Society in 1966. 33 As mentioned earlier in Milne's quote, funding and access were an issue, as developers were reluctant to allow 'just anyone' onto their site, not recognising archaeology as a profession. 34 However, with the rise in public attention of archaeology, the rapid growth of development in the city, and the rescue movement gaining momentum, the Museum of London Act  35 The London Museum, based in Kensington Palace, was only a temporary location offered by King George VI and extended by the Queen in 1970, and the Guildhall Museum had mostly Roman finds which could be a happy marriage to the collection at the London Museum. Furthermore, the costs would be divided by the City of London, The Exchequer and the City Corporation, a partnership that would be more fruitful. 36 However, the making of the Museum of London was not only a public need. As London was growing internationally, it was equally understood that the city needed its own museum, like many other international cities. 37 The 1970s: The Future of London's Past With planning and development booming in the 1960s, London's archaeology was left conducted without much structure. Important publication work, such as Heighway's The Erosion of History in 1972 and Rahtz's Rescue Archaeology in 1974 highlighted the emergency state that archaeology was in as the rescue revolution came to a peak. 38 Archaeologists joined forces and in 1971 saw the establishment of RESCUE: the British Archaeology Trust, a pressure group set on rescuing and salvaging threatened sites, and fulfilling a remit that the Council of British Archaeology (set up in 1944) could not take on because its remit actually excluded it from carrying out excavation and other work. 39 Archaeologists began to mobilise and receive strong public attention, perhaps because the 1970s property boom had caused a 'sharp upturn in development activity' as developers were encouraged through finance schemes and profits from rising land prices. 40 In an article published in 1975 by one of archaeology's charismatic leaders of the time, Martin Biddle announced: Four years ago British archaeologists emerged, belatedly, from their Age of Complacency to meet a challenge from an alien culturethe property developers and road builders. . .The archaeologists. . .founded Rescue in January 1971. . .two thousand people joined Rescue in its first 18 months. Julian Amery, then Minister for Housing, more than doubled Government funds for rescue archaeology from £210,000 a year to £480,000 in 1972-73. . . 41 Public interest and a strong rescue movement had got the attention from the public through the media, and eventually of the government. The controversial destruction of sitessuch as Baynard's Castle in the City (1972) and the New Palace Yard excavation in front of Westminster (1973)without allowing proper examination would cause another public outcry 42 ( Figure 2). Harvey Sheldon, 43 a pioneer of rescue archaeology, recounts: Biddle was a big figure. . .known as "The Bishop". . .[he] got a lot of TV coverage and also worked on a book with colleagues about the threat to the city. The city, essentially, announced more or less, that it was going to fund the local museum to set up a department to do the archaeology. Which was much in advance of the one-man field officer, which had characterised it since the war. 44 The structure was changing, needing to respond quickly to rapid changes in the urban fabric. The 70s were a key period for planning, on top of a radically new system emerging. 45 The decade began under the Tory rule: liberal-conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath supported unions and also launched the Department of the Environment (DoE), 46 which was to become the principal funding body of archaeology during the 1970s. 'Under the direction of the Secretary of State for the Environment the central theme of the DoE [was] to protect and improve the environment of England' 47 : it established regional archaeological organisations that were funded from Local Authorities, developers and central government, which meant no longer would there be the direct link between the Inspectorate and fieldwork. 48 As local government was reorganised in 1974, individual counties became more involved, financially and otherwise, in the execution of fieldwork although local government was not happy with being told, unexpectedly, to fund archaeology. 49 The climate and enthusiasm led to the formation of urban teams during the late 1960s and 1970s ( Figure 3). Laura Schaaf 50 recalls that 'the 70s was a patchwork of small teams, informal and formal structures. . .most people knew each other. There wasn't really the kind of competition that came in later because people were working largely in geographical areas'. 51 As part of the rescue archaeology movement (which was coming to an end during the mid-1970s), various archaeological teams had developed around London, which had and continues to have a significant role for archaeology. These Once established, in the case of some teams at least, as much of the basic annual funding came from the individual boroughs, quite a lot of effort was required to ensure continuityperhaps survival is a better wordfrom one financial year to the next! Changes in political control, priorities, resources available, individual councillors support, were likely to be factors that affected individual boroughs support. 52 Sheldon describes units during the mid-70s as being set up 'largely at the impetus of county societies' covering different, but not all, of the Greater London boroughs. 53 Jones, in his book Rescue Archaeology, explains how the 70s saw 'a group of younger archaeologists, dismayed by the lack of progress in the cause of rescue work at a period of unprecedented opportunity', turn to national campaigns and the need for non-academic action. 54 Seventies British culture and society have been described as 'a decade when different groups attempted, in their different ways, to effect change for the better', as well as a 'revolution in consciousness' 55 : a fitting environment for the Rescue revolution of the 70s, one of the greatest single changes ever of British Archaeology. 56 Dominic Perring 57 recounts: We enjoyed the Rescue heroic era of archaeology, where we were working for the public good. We were working with the public, we were uncovering new pasts, we were making big strides in our knowledge. It was because we were confronting the despoilers of the past, the horrible developers, the planning bureaucrats, and it was through our individual heroic achievements that we were winning and rescuing from the ground these great achievements. You can't have that sense of heroic endeavour in a world where we are structured, funded, competitive and so on; and we have become an industry and a business rather than a cause. It's very difficult to remake it into a cause, except by destroying the advantages we've gained, by putting in place the bricks of an environment which supports health and safety, career progression. . .not glamorous career progression, not heroic, but there. It's the nuts and bolts. I don't think we can go back. To go back would be to surrender territory. 58 He continues that: . . .Archaeology in the 60s and early 70s didn't employ that many people, it wasn't a significant profession. . . So we went through this exponential growth. The rate of growth in the early 70s was phenomenal. And it created this new platform of people who hadn't got ancestors whose approaches needed to be respected: we could be dismissive of the past. We also came in on the wake of New Archaeology, which also had this idea that we were rejecting former intellectual paradigms as well. And it's this mix of it being a new profession, iconoclastic and destroying the ridiculous practises of our predecessors. You can only go through such revolutions once, really. The rejection of the authorities of the previous generations, the opening up of how we did things, it felt big. It felt like a big deal. 59 And it was big. It was a 'service to the nation' where archaeologists were 'serving, rescuing literally, the archaeological heritage for prosperity'. 60 That same rhetoric and sentiment was held in the international arena as well, demonstrated by the release of many documents on cultural heritage protection. 61 Planning was developing as a direct consequence of ideological changes in society and major reform of local government. Harris 62 suggests the post-war period saw a battle in government between supporters of the free market and supporters of state involvement, but that a middle ground was being sought. The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 introduced two key elements: Structure Plans, which would provide the framework for the second element, that is, Local Plans. To help with Structure Plans, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1970) prepared a manual on Development Plans and DoE circulars (i.e. one relevant Circular to mention is DoE Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission which mentions development should consider surrounding material considerations in relation to archaeological sites, which we discuss later through PPG16).
The emerging practice of developing partnerships with private enterprise through negotiation, with the objective of creating a community for the public's well-being, was helpful in creating an atmosphere that benefited archaeologists in getting access to urban sites at that time, as it was not always easy.
Further complications were introduced when the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 would provide further grounds for some developers to limit access because access means 'developers are absorbing the cost of delay'. 63 Archaeologists needed to ensure that the premises and tools were in proper working condition and most importantly that a 'proper system of working' was enforced. 64 It was not a perfect relationship, and as the economy grew, conflicts between developers and communities grew due to rapid developments changing landscapes, and so the pressures of planning had to be further addressed. For archaeologists it had boiled down to the power of influence, to negotiate access to sites. Jon Cotton 65 recalls: [In] the old days. . .archaeology was very much a rescue, fire-fighting operation. It wasn't part of the planning process. You virtually had to sit across tables and persuade developers who were about to develop sites to spend money on something they didn't want to spend money on. It was a process of bluff really. Unless they provided us with access and, even better, funding to undertake the archaeology, they would be cast in a bad light by local press and local TV, or whatever. That was about the only card archaeologists had to play in those days; together with a very strong link with local communities. Ironically, we've come back to community archaeology, but after archaeology itselfthe professional archaeologyhas gone through several crises. 66 As mentioned earlier, the Department of Urban Archaeology (DUA) was set up in 1973 as a department of the Museum of London (MoL), being active before the museum building actually opened in 1976. 67 It was established specifically as a result of the Rescue movement to cover the City of London. Jenny Hall, 68 who was a Senior Curator at the MoL for 37 years, recounts: The DUA was the unit formed in 1973. . .They were working on site in the city, and the Museum was working hard opening the Museum of London. We were trying to choose objects to display. So archaeology was just there, we were aware of it, but we were so focused on getting the Museum open. . . 69 Also at this time, in 1975 the DoE's Central Excavation Unit was set up to fill the gap that other organisations could not do due to lack of resources. It was staffed entirely by paid professionals. 70 The GLC had equally started to pay attention to the needs of archaeology, recalled Sheldon: Putting archaeology and development on a London-wide, regional, basis seemed the best way forward to ensure financial stability as well as to improve coverage. The GLC, with their regional role, were pivotal to this. . .the institution moved from a position in the mid-1970s when its attitude to archaeology, even on its own developments was rather passive, to one of promoting an integrated 'archaeological service' for London by the end of the decade. 71 By the end of the 1970s and moving into the 1980s, one of the most significant developments was that archaeological work was now being done alongside local planning authorities, who would work together to identify sites under threat during development. 'The considered selection of priority tasks and the employment of greater management skills in marshalling and exploiting resources made a significant impact on the achievement of proper local, at times even regional, co-ordination'. 72 Archaeologists, by the end of the 1970s, knew that they would have to establish relationships with planners and developers. 73 The 1980s: The Decade Leading up to Archaeology under Planning Laws During the turn of the decade, the main issue surrounding archaeology was a question of finance. The days of the Rescue movement were over, and the costs of archaeology would be 'actively and hostilely questioned'. 74 With the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, the government had recognised there had been 'considerable expenditure on rescue archaeology for many years' (see the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Bill, 1979: § 1360). 75 It also consolidated and amended the law relating to ancient monuments: it made provisions for the investigation, preservation and recording of matters of archaeological or historical interest and for the regulation of operations or activities affecting such matters; and provided for the recovery of grants. 76 '. . .The system was changing and that was partly to do with developer funding in the 80s, where the developers were being more or less forced by pressure to actually take some bloody responsibility for the sites that were being destroyed, some of that being financial', recalls Sheldon. 77 The developments were in line with those affecting the entire country. Thatcherite London was the capital of a country suffering: the old order had disintegrated, and a city and a nation were willing to try something new and unchartered, and social change brought new people, with unconventional attitudes, to the fore. 78 Thatcher's 80s also led to the end of virtually all of the anti-London planning policies that had dominated the government during earlier decades. 79 Her government did not believe in the planning ideologies in place from 1945 and instead used public money to stimulate private investment in new enterprises. 'A major step in Thatcher's neoliberalisation and globalisation of London was financial deregulation. . .which attracted international firms interested in international banking rather than in servicing the needs of the British economy. . .'. 80 It was a decade characterised by the neoliberalisation of Britain's public policy, the financialisation and internationalisation of London's economy, and its increasing detachment from the rest of the United Kingdom, economically and politically. The 1986 'Big Bang' and the deregulation of financial markets were symbolic to a huge economic and political shift. 81 On visiting London's Archaeological Archive Research Centre (the LAARC), one can see the explosion and effect of deregulations manifested by an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of shelves allocated to artefacts found during development from the 1980s.
When the Labour Party won control of the GLC in 1981, the campaign to abolish the GLC grew, with Conservative-controlled boroughs and central government against the socialist activities of the GLC. The power rivalry was intense: the GLC had no support from the London Borough Association, which split the association and prompted Labour Boroughs to form their own association, the Association of London Authorities.
While the political strife continued, the GLC had meanwhile been negotiating with all the local archaeological units of Greater London in 1982 and had set up the Department of Greater London Archaeology (DGLA), which would be a Department of the Museum of London, with some funding from the GLC. Gill Chitty 82 comments: Prior to the GLC taking over the funding for the service, there'd been a kind of federal arrangement in London where there were a significant number of different so-called archaeological units: Southwark and Lambeth, a north London one, a southwest London one. They'd been funded by Local Authorities in a fairly piecemeal kind of way, plus developer funding. There are 33 local authority boroughs in London. . .so they were all set up slightly differently and there was no consistency of practice. There was quite a degree of competitiveness, I should say, between different units across London area and there were some boroughs that didn't have any coverage at all, or at least very sketchy. So the negotiations that set out the service, the idea of a unified across-the-board single service of London, all took place. . . It was a big investment for the GLC. And a big investment for archaeology. It was just under a million pounds a year to run the service effectively. To take on the core staff of each of the archaeology units -It meant a lot to them because they'd been working very much hand-tomouth, year to year, not knowing whether they'd be able to keep their staff on. So the idea of the GLC undertaking to fund the service, I think it was for a three year period, gave them the kind of stability they needed to develop systems and approaches and a much more professional approach, if you like.
You have to remember this is a very very rapid period of growth in Rescue archaeology from the 70s through to the early/mid-80s. Suddenly developer-funding came on big time, and it came on big time in London before anywhere else of course, because that's where the money was being spent. So it was a real grave period and there was a need to give it a structure. The GLC took on that funding from the London Boroughs and the service was an aggregation of the separate units brought together under one umbrella, nationally funded in a single programme. But it was pretty paper-thin to begin with because it was literally five different organisations just brigaded together. They were all separate charities. They all had their own governance and they had their own staff. So, it was a little bit of smoke and mirrors I would say, with the best of intentions to create a single unified service. And of course what happened was three years on in '86, Thatcher wound up the Metropolitan Authorities so the GLC was disbanded. 83 During the 1980s, the local government functions were still executed by each borough council (the principal local authority), including planning. 84 The Corporation of London (with jurisdiction over the City of London) also continued to play a big role in funding archaeological endeavours, such as the Guildhall Museum, the Museum of London, and the DUA. By this time, during the 1980s, the DUA had flourished alongside the property boom.
. . .Brian Hobley, he ran with DUA, and was. . .looking after himself and making his empire, the DUA, better than the museum. But saying that, he did bring it together and drive it along. . .But the DUA at one point just got too big for their boots. They were digging, publishing, and starting to do displays either on-site or for the developers, which was rather encroaching on what the museum might do. So that got a bit difficult at times. 85 From those interviewed, a lot of the comments that surround the days of the DUA talk about how it was all down to persuasion, and having that one-to-one relationship with developers. 86 The archaeological units had begun to offer both curatorial advice and contractual work to developers and had developed quite close relationships. 87 The role of the individual in driving organisations and the relationships between groups played a big part in increasing archaeology's recognition in the city.
Meanwhile, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (known as English Heritage) was set up under the National Heritage Act 1983 to secure and promote the preservation, enhancement and conservation of ancient monuments, historic buildings and conservation areas, as well as ensure public enjoyment of these areas. 88 However, without going into full detail of the struggle, 89 the GLC was stripped of its functions little by little, with the Government calling the GLC wasteful. 90 In the end, despite the Government's arguments that the GLC should be abolished having no research-driven justification, the Local Government Act 1985 abolished the Greater London Council (and six English Metropolitan County Councils) on the grounds of inefficiency: its responsibilities were then transferred over to various successors, such as special purpose agencies, committees or bodies, as well as the London Boroughs.
Gill Chitty, Head of the GLC Archaeology Service at the time, comments: Ken Livingstone was a radical man, the leader of the Council. It was a left-wing authority, a very strong Labour authority. Part of the political motivation disbanding the Metropolitan Authority was that they all were very very strong Labour authorities which Heseltine and the Thatcher government didn't really get on with. They were huge power-bases. All the Metropolitan Authorities were extremely wealthy authorities because they were big conurbations with massive populations. So suddenly there was political motivations in dismantling the [Metropolitan] Authorities. Archaeology is always so low down along the political agendas, I don't think it was a big deal really, the idea of archaeology going into English Heritage. It wasn't just archaeology, English Heritage took on the whole of the historic building division of the GLC that was about 40 staff, plus the service.
The Bill was fast-tracked, hardly any debate, because it needed an act of parliament to dissolve the Metropolitans. . .The government was just looking for a very easy bolt on solutions that it could use to ensure continuity for employment for staff and of services that had to just finish on the 31 st of March, and be up and running on the 1 st of April, within a matter of a few months. So I think English Heritage just stepped in and offered to run the service for London. It was probably seen as a neat solution for the government, and a very safe pair of hands of course. 91 'English Heritage stepped in to fill a vacuum', 92 a move that is still in place today. Leach and Game 93 say that this 1985 Act was arguably the 'single most controversial piece of legislation' of the Thatcher government, leaving London as the only western capital without an elected city government.
The 1980s were also a period of 'much greater awareness for the need for complex urban archaeology', 94 and this demand fed into the development of different organisations and also opened the door for new techniques and practices to change both standards and the organisational structure. Some archaeologists felt archaeology needed a professional body, and so, in 1982, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA), originally named the Institute of Field Archaeologists, was founded. 95 But the initial name of 'field' is, in fact, revealing: at this time, archaeology was booming, but that boom was on-site in cities. The heroic archaeologists gaining way with the public and politicians were the ones out there rescuing and saving what was being destroyed. As we heard from Perring earlier, archaeologists were breaking away from the old school of what an archaeologist was and re-inventing themselves. They were beyond the oldschool archaeologists of universities. John Schofield, 96 Head of DUA in the late 1980s, comments: . . .looking back on the last three to four decades, the academics had nothing to do with urban archaeology. They were indifferent. They were teaching prehistory, the joys of Syria and Jordan and all that jazz. There is no academic influence whatsoever on the development of London archaeology in the 70s and 80s. It was run by the Museumsome clever peopleand us, the dirt archaeologists, who created the discipline ourselves. . . . . .academia didn't appreciate that. They didn't see that we were the cutting edge of the subject. Now, we have partly infiltrated them of course. . . . . .I can't think of any direct interest or involvement of any academic in London archaeology in the 70s or 80s. . .there was never any seminar on urban archaeology, not for 30 years. And they were spewing out graduates, some of which they gave to us. There was no view in the Institute [of Archaeology] that maybe they should prepare them by getting a dirt-stained muddy archaeologist along to tell them how it would be. So at that level there was no dialogue at all. Maybe that was as much our fault as theirs. We had our head down the trench holes. But I do feel that we worked out how to deal with urban archaeology. Look at all the formative documents of the 70s and 80s, they all come first out of the profession. And then government gets dragged along. 97 While Schofield is quite forthright here, despite the waning of leading figures from the Rescue movement the waning of leading figures from the Rescue movement, many of the individuals and many of the reports and publications that were mentioned earlier came out of academia. While 'academic advisory committees were abolished in the attack on "quangos"' 98 in the early 1980s, there were still relatively strong links between particular individuals and academic institutions. Clive Orton, 99 for example, was IoA staff and senior editor since 1976 of the journal London Archaeologist, an invaluable publication and contribution to London archaeology. Other links are very apparent: Phillip from Birmingham University led RESCUE; Grimes who had been Director of the IoA was also a Chairman of English Heritage until the late 1970s; even beyond individuals, institutions stand out such as York, Cardiff, Southampton, Bournemouth, Oxford and Sheffield, for example, for their contribution to the professionalisation of archaeology as many universities have or had archaeological units. While many of these archaeological units have recently been under threat of closure, 100 a few still remain.
In 1988 the Local Government Act introduced the compulsory tendering of contracts to provide a competitive market in terms of services and costs: it required public agencies to put certain services out to competitive tender and to award the work to the contractor who best met specified criteria. This had a profound effect on the way that archaeology restructured itself in the 1990s. This move to compulsory tendering alongside the principle of polluter's pay changed archaeology significantly, allowing units to bid against each other for contracts and changing the structure completely.
The idea of polluter's pay had been around informally during the 1970s and 1980s already. Also, it was picking up momentum internationally through the European Union Environment Committee (now called the Environment Policy Committee) who was exploring the 'polluter pay's principle'. 101 The principle first appeared in a legal context in a document prepared by the international Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development with the following recommendation: The principle to be used for allocating costs of pollution prevention and control measures to encourage rational use of scarce environmental resources and to avoid distortions in international trade and investment is the so-called 'Polluter Pays principle'. This principle means that the polluter should bear the expenses of carrying out the above mentioned measures decided by public authorities to ensure that the environment is in an acceptable state. In other words, the cost of these measures should be reflected in the costs of goods and services which cause pollution in production and/or consumption. . . 102 After 1972 it was put into the Community Environmental Action Programme (which sets out forthcoming legislative proposals on EU environmental policy) in 1973 and 1976; and, in 1992, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 103 stated that 'States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage' and that 'the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest. . .' These international legal frameworks alongside the development of national policies meant the planning system continued to see many changes. Modifications in the late 80s and early 90s led to new policy advice documents, known as Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs).
The 1980s ended with one of the most controversial excavations, which would lead to a change in structure and attitude at the start of the 1990s. The 1988/89 Rose Theatre controversy in Southwark sparked a public outcry that embarrassed the government. It highlighted the absence of archaeological assessment before determining planning permission, and of curatorial oversight for Greater London. 104 The Museum of London, which was the leading authority of advice and excavation at the time, had advised the London Borough of Southwark that planning permission could go ahead, and so it was granted. The developers had given the MoL permission to conduct a routine excavation, however as time went on, it was clear that the development would damage the theatre (known to be there from Ordnance Survey and Sites and Monuments Records). Through a mixture of an unprecedented public campaign with key involvement of very prominent public figures, great media interest, growing English Heritage and Museum of London tensions, the 'saga of saving the Rose [had become] complex and stressful' and 'aroused so much emotion'. 105 The MoL team had to pass responsibility to finish the excavation to EH's Central Excavation Unit.
There was no legal framework that would deal with compensation in light of unexpected discoveries, and EH was put in a difficult situation. The controversy opened eyes in terms of the Greater London structure, and pushed forward archaeology being placed in the planning system through PPG 16, but also established the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) within English Heritage, removing curatorial powers from the MoL, which had also been seen as a conflict of interest in terms of their two roles as curator and excavation unit. It should be stressed, however, that archaeologists working in the MoL at the time, suggest despite a 'conflict of interest' seen from the outside, it was not so in practice.

The 1990s: Planning and Archaeology Merge
By the early 1990s, the limitations of the single-tier model for London government (a result of the abolition of the GLC) was evident. Boroughs lacked broader strategic vision and could not coordinate their work on London-wide issues (e.g. transport, strategic planning or economic development). The Town and County Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) introduced Section 106 agreements: these enabled Local Authorities to require developers to make contributions to mitigate the impacts of developments. Following the TCPA, perhaps the most significant document produced by the UK Government on archaeology was issued: the Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16) introduced November 1990.
Some of the key issues set out in PPG16, which changed the way archaeology was approached in the UK, included (my italics): 6. Archaeological remains should be seen as a finite and non-renewable resource, in many cases highly fragile and vulnerable to damage and destruction. Appropriate management is therefore essential to ensure that they survive in good condition. In particular, care must be taken to ensure that archaeological remains are not needlessly or thoughtlessly destroyed.
The document starts with the recognition that archaeological remains are 'finite', 'nonrenewable', 'fragile' and 'vulnerable', and suggests mitigation.
14. Both central government and English Heritage have important roles to play. . . But the key to the future of the great majority of archaeological sites and historic landscapes lies with local authorities, acting within the framework set by central government, in their various capacities as planning, education and recreational authorities, as well as with the owners of sites themselves.
Here Local Authorities are emphasised as the main bodies making the decisions. 18. The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining planning. . .Developers and local authorities should take into account archaeological considerations and deal with them from the beginning of the development control process. Where local planning authorities are aware of a real and specific threat to a known archaeological site. . .they may wish to consider. . .to withdraw those rights and to require specific planning permission to be obtained before development can proceed.
Most important here is that archaeology is defined as a material consideration. PPG1 General Policy and Principles 1992 and Section 26 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, draw attention to 'material considerations'; the latter states that there is 'a presumption in favour of development proposals which are in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise'. 23. Planning authorities should also ensure that they are fully informed about the nature and importance of the archaeological site and its setting. They should therefore seek archaeological advice, normally from the County Archaeological Officer or equivalent who in turn may wish to consult locally based museums and archaeological units and societies. The case for the preservation of archaeological remains must however be assessed on the individual merits of each case. . .
It is interesting that the guidance suggests seeking advice from 'local' practitioners, somewhat contradicting the principles of competitive tendering that allowed bids from anywhere within the EU. 28. There will no doubt be occasions, particularly where remains of lesser importance are involved, when planning authorities may decide that the significance of the archaeological remains is not sufficient when weighed against all other material considerations, including the need for development, to justify their physical preservation in situ and that the proposed development should proceed. . ..planning authorities will, in such cases, need to satisfy themselves that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory arrangements for the excavation and recording of the archaeological remains and the publication of the results.
This article demonstrates that the authority and power really rely on the Planning Authorities and that it is actually under their discretion whether archaeology is 'significant' or not. It also emphasises the promotion of sustainable economic growth, and how planning should not be an impediment to growth.
PPG 16 still resonates strongly with archaeologists; because of it archaeology legally became a material consideration in planning decisions. It became a part of the planning system, a status that proved to be a massive milestone.
Staying with the 90s, the DUA and DGLA were amalgamated into the Museum of London Archaeology Service (MoLAS) in 1991 after the Big Bang crash in hope that amalgamation would be more cost-effective and competed alongside other emerging contractors. Many of the contractors that emerged through the competitive tendering requirement started with individuals who had worked or had some affiliation with the DUA, DGLA or MoLAS. This was a major change in the organisational landscape of London as what had been a central London hub in terms of concentrating expertise, skill, information and resources became fragmented into different groups. The advantage and opportunities that were provided from working in physical proximity with one another under the Museum of London created a community which offered all attributes such as innovation, sharing of resources, and the positive outcomes of shared working culture and approach. As different groups began to enter the archaeology market, shared visions began to fragment, and competitive approaches to win bids made the earlier years significantly competitive. 106 The rest of the 1990s were really about dealing with the changes that were set about by the huge changes that came into place. Units were trying to find their feet in the market place, and also had to come to terms with competing for territory that had been their patch for decades. Taryn Nixon 107 summarises the period: I would characterise it as being highly fragmented and just about coming of age, now. My overview on the whole profession is that we raced very quickly from the 70s, where there was just so much data that some stunningly successful endeavours came about to basically capture that data, to rescue that data, before it got lost. Then inevitably creating big publication backlog, and people not quite knowing what to do with it, lots of people putting some really good thinking into whether we should have archives, and should we get to a certain level of publication for everything, and all the rest of it, to then rushing headlong into a sort of competitive world where we created these new teams of curators, contractors and consultants, and ended up tendering for work, and creating a new market. But then, for me, the next 20 years were us as professionals behaving very immaturely in that market. Not because we were bad people, but just because we were a new profession, effectively, from 1990 and PPG16 onwards. So inevitably people would undercut each other, people would try to win work at any costs.

Closing Remarks
Today, London has a Greater London Authority (GLA) that was established in 2000, after 24 years of being governed by a single tier Local Government. In the 1998 Greater London Authority Referendum, 72% voted in favour of the establishment of a new strategic authority, which resulted in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Its goals are to improve the coordination between boroughs and to provide London with a unified voice. Headed by the Mayor of London, its work is scrutinised by the London Assembly.
In terms of planning, PPG 16 was consequently replaced in 2010 by a statement with more emphasis on community engagement, PPS 5: Planning and the Historic Environment, which has also now all been replaced (along with all the other Planning Policy Statements) by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in 2012 and revised again in 2018 (e.g. PIA Forum, 2012 for in-depth discussion). The NPPF and its consequent revision dilute quite a lot of the principles laid out in the PPG 16.
In 2011 MoLAS separated from the Museum of London to become an independent limited charitable company Museum of London Archaeology (MoLA). This again has shifted the organisational landscape in terms of cutting a very powerful relationship in archaeology between fieldwork, curatorship and public dissemination.
New structures continue to be reorganised. As of June 2014, the government split English Heritage into two separate organisations: Historic England (to fulfil its duties as the government's executive non-departmental advisory body) and English Heritage (to run the National Heritage Collection [EH properties] and become a charitable company to eventually be entirely self-funded). 108 At the time, the controversial plan caused concern for various organisations such as the National Trust, the Council for British Archaeology, the Society of Antiquaries and RESCUE, 109 and continues to be controversial to this day.
In the meantime, London archaeologists continue to have their work threatened by proposals side-lining archaeology in the name of encouraging sustainable development and international competition. This is most notable through cuts to archaeological services (see Rescue News). 110 Many Local Authority historic environment services have had severe cuts to their budgets, which has not only reduced the quality of the service and responsibilities but has equally crippled the service through loss of staff and expertise. These include budget cuts to the CBA and English Heritage. In addition, there have been continuous cuts to archaeological services within Local Authorities, which are absolutely vital for archaeology under the planning system to actually function.
It is equally concerning that the NPPF emphasises 'sustainable development' and that planning should 'proactively. . .meet the development needs of business and support the economy fit for the 21st century', who 'should not be over-burdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations'. 111 On top of this, development lobbyist groups are publishing reviews, such as the Penfold Review, which have 'looked for changes that increase certainty, speed up processes, reduce duplication and minimise costs'. It also suggests that 'business contributors (. . .) emphasised they wanted to see action taken to reform those consents that they consider to be most problematicnamely, heritage, highways and environment-related consentsand (. . .) therefore sought to make recommendations focused on improving the operation of consents in these specific areas.' ' 112 There are groups strongly opposing protection to the environment and criticise it 'for delaying the planning process and for reducing its transparency, certainty and accountability'. 113 The Department for Business Innovation and Skills 114 Implementation of the Penfold Review was published in 2011, stating 'the Government will reform the remits of the key consenting and advisory agencies to ensure [they] contribute to a competitive business environment by considering the impact of their decisions. . .and swiftly approving consents when it is appropriate to do so'. 115 More positively, as of December 2017, the Government published The Heritage Statement and announced the creation of a Heritage Council to sit across Parliament's departments. The Council is made up of representatives from Government departments DCMS, DEFRA, MHCLG and HMT and sits alongside representatives from Historic England, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, Heritage Alliance, Natural England, National Trust and Historic Houses. As the UK plans to leave the EU, there are also emerging changes to policy such as a new Agriculture Bill and the new Environment Bill in which the historic environment hopes to embed itself within.
Both planning and archaeology shifted enormously after WWII as new ideas embedded in incremental legislation, based on the principles of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, slowly developed land use, planning and archaeology. Over the past 50 and more years, both planning and archaeology have moved from sitting in a relatively uncertain territory to becoming a central tool for the development and sustainability of the city's unique urban fabric.
Some key changes archaeology has gone through over the decades, and changes in the organisational landscape according to wider politics, have been presented here. The role of finance in enabling services, and how renegotiations between various stakeholders have resulted in complete shifts in conducting archaeology have also been discussed. Examples include the end of the Inspectorate role; the amalgamation of London Museum and the Guildhall Museum into the Museum of London; the rise and fall and restructuring of the role of the GLC; the loss of the Museum of London's authority to GLAAS; the move into competitive tendering and the creation of units and opening up to the market.
The underlying research of this paper can be accessed by contacting the author directly. This work could not have materialised without the openness and honesty from the many practitioners interviewed between 2013-2015. I would like to specifically thank those mentioned in this article: Martin Biddle, Gill Chitty, Jon Cotton, Jenny Hall, Peter Hinton, Gustav Milne, Taryn Nixon, Clive Orton, Dominic Perring, Laura Schaaf, John Schofield, Harvey Sheldon, Jane Sidell and Roger Thomas, with extra thanks to Tim Williams, who also inspired a lot of this work as my PhD supervisor.