1.1.1 The reader should be aware that it is helpful to read this TAG Unit in conjunction with The Environmental Capital Approach (TAG Unit 3.3.6). The man-made historic environment ('heritage', or heritage resource, heritage assets) comprises:

buildings (individually or in association) of architectural or historic significance;
areas, such as parks, gardens, other designed landscapes or public spaces, remnant historic landscapes and archaeological complexes; and
sites (e.g. ancient monuments, places with historical associations such as battlefields, preserved evidence of human effects on the landscape, etc.).

Heritage also includes the sense of identity and place which the combination of these features provides.

1.1.2 The characteristics of the heritage may be commonplace and contribute to local identity, being representative of the distinctiveness of an area. They may also be significant due to their rarity, exemplary form or style, or historical associations. Appreciation of characteristics can change with time (e.g. recent listing of post-war buildings), and trends in character and identity of the heritage should be taken into account during its appraisal. This guidance builds on DMRB 11.3.2.6 and is based on guidelines prepared by English Heritage.

1.2 Methodologies for Plans

1.2.1 The methodology for appraising the impact of plans on heritage follows the four stage general approach to appraising 'environmental capital' set out above, leading to an overall assessment score. Applied to heritage, the approach is:

to describe sequentially the characteristic features of the heritage;
to appraise environmental capital - using a set of indicators, this is done by assessing
- the importance of these characteristic features,
- why they are important, and
- the inter-relationships between heritage features;
to describe how proposals impact on the heritage features, including effects on its distinctive quality; and
to produce an overall assessment score on a seven point scale.

1.2.2 This framework is set out in Worksheet 1 provided at the end of the TAG Unit, and further definitions and explanation to assist in completing this are set out below.

1.2.3 The process of characterising and appraising the heritage is important in its own right, and not just as a means to produce the final score which will feature on an AST. The methodology and detail provides further information to decision makers, who will often have to look further than the AST and its score in considering the effects of proposals. This work will also provide a clear audit trail setting out the basis for these decisions.

1.2.4 Stage 1: Describe heritage character. This stage of the approach involves describing the character of the heritage in question. This process should record the characteristic features of a study area, identifying what currently exists and any discernible trends which would lead to degradation or loss of those characteristic features in the absence of the proposals. This provides a baseline against which the effects of the proposals can be appraised. Limited areas or specific proposals will allow detailed description of the heritage in question; more strategic or geographically extensive proposals will require a higher level of description, appropriate to the scale of the study and focusing on the most characteristic features of the historic resource.

1.2.5 Character is described using a series of Features, against each of which brief descriptive text characterises the resource. The Features are listed on the left of Worksheet 1, and the Description column provides the space to describe the resource in appropriate terms. These features are designed to be applicable to the historic built environment as well as archaeological sites and monuments.

1.2.6 This descriptive process does not involve qualitative judgements; the significance of the characteristics described forms the subsequent stage.

1.2.7 Stage 2: Appraise environmental capital. This stage involves appraising the character described under each feature (attribute) against a set of judgemental indicators to establish the significance of the heritage resource in question. This uses the concept of Environmental Capital to assess what matters in the historic environment, to whom, and why it is important. These indicators should be applied to all of the features described under Stage 1 of the process above. These are an attempt to move away from a simple designation led approach, since the varying sets of legislation and levels of designation for the heritage do not lend themselves readily to such a hierarchical system. Rather than apply notional absolute values to qualities of the heritage, this Stage seeks to establish the significance of features within their context and work towards relative values. For example, medieval moated sites are quite common in low-lying parts of southern England, and are nationally well-represented in the archaeological resource. They are rare in upland areas, especially in the north, and so a typical example (in terms of its form) in Cumbria would be potentially much more significant in its region and nationally than an equivalent site in the south of the country. This appraisal of the significance of the heritage resource is represented on Worksheet 1 by the columns Scale it Matters/Rarity/Significance.

1.2.8 The methodology outlined for stages 1 and 2, describing and appraising the significance of the heritage assets in the study area, provides a baseline level of environmental capital. These stages should also consider the likely changes to these heritage assets over time in the absence of the study proposals.

1.2.9 Stage 3: Appraise impact of proposal. This stage involves describing the impact of the study proposals, set against the baseline environmental capital established in the preceding stages. This is an identification process, and precedes the judgement of the final assessment score. The impairment or loss of the significance described in the previous stage should be set out, and will provide the background context for the final qualitative comments in the Appraisal Summary Table. This could include the loss of features within a specific location, or the cumulative impact of extensive proposals on a number of elements of the wider heritage resource. It should provide an assessment of the scale and seriousness of the impact in specific terms, and the cumulative effect across the study area as a whole. This should encompass incremental or secondary impacts, such as gradual degradation of context through noise or other pollution, etc. All impacts on the heritage resource, either adverse or beneficial, should be identified, along with their magnitude. Reference could be made to recommended mitigations of the impacts, including an estimate of their adequacy, and therefore provide a justification for the final assessment score for the proposals. The time period for consideration of impacts should include the worst-case scenario, whenever this would arise, and the situation 15 years after implementation of the proposals. This is represented by the Impact column of Worksheet 1.

1.2.10 Stage 4: Overall assessment score. This stage involves deriving an overall assessment score (on the standard 7 point text scale: large/moderate/slight beneficial and adverse, neutral), along with the qualitative comments informed by the impact described in Stage 3 and the definitions given below for those scores.

1.2.11 Features, for the purpose of this guidance, are the attributes which most strongly define the heritage resource of the study area. It is important to identify and describe the characteristic elements of the heritage under the relevant Feature in Worksheet 1. For detailed schemes, the Environmental Statement or similar documentation should have described the heritage in some detail, and set it in a wider context. There is likely to be considerable consistency through use of standard descriptive approaches, such as ancient monument classifications, Listed Building descriptions, Conservation Area character appraisals and other sources. This should make appraisal of specific schemes, and comparisons between them, as straightforward and consistent as possible.

1.2.12 Form - This is the physical form of the site, building(s), historic land/townscapes or other heritage assets being described and appraised. It should consist of a factual description setting out their structure, scale, extent, materials, style and format. It should focus on the characteristic attributes of the heritage in question. It might usefully be phrased in hierarchical terms, starting with main structures/features, and moving on to their scale, extent, construction and materials. (e.g. Farm, main house and outbuildings, house in brick, 2 storey, slate roof, cobbled yard surfaces, brick and timber barn, enclosed by moat, wet, on 3 sides, north arm infilled). This is not restricted to a site by site description of individual buildings or other components, but can also encompass area descriptions such as the form, scale, layout and pattern of a historic landscape or townscape.

1.2.13 Survival - The heritage survives in many different states of completeness. The area of a monument or landscape may have been reduced by some forms of land use, such as ploughing or quarrying, or elements of a building or area lost through occasional or progressive alteration so that original or important fabric has been removed or damaged. Many parts of the heritage, especially buildings and urban areas, are products of multiple phases of development and use. Judgement must be applied to determine which are the most characteristic elements in question, and it is their survival which should be indicated here. The relationship between multiple characteristics is covered below under complexity. A text description of the extent of survival of the likely original or characteristic fabric should be given, along with a more general estimate based on a 3 point scale: Poor, where less than 40% remains; Moderate, where 40-70% remains; Good, where over 70% remains intact.

1.2.14 Condition - This represents the appearance and present management of the heritage resource, along with its stability and likely rate of change from existing condition. It is quite distinct from survival, in that a roofless ruin might be very incomplete as a result of historic damage or decay but currently be very well managed and maintained as a historic monument, and therefore what remains would be in good condition. This description should refer to any erosion or other factors which might cause decay, the current management and maintenance regimes and any problems with them, and any inherent instabilities.

1.2.15 Complexity - This represents both the diversity of elements and their relationships within a part of the heritage resource and the wider complexity of its relationships beyond this immediate limits. Within a location, this could include a complex sequence of additions to a building over a lengthy period of development, such that it is composed of and representational of a multi-period and stylistically diverse development in building techniques and architectural styles. These could be of historical or architectural significance. Alternatively, an individual structure might be relatively uncomplicated in period and style, but represent one type among a wide variety within a class of sites and be illustrative of that diversity. Beyond a single location, this could include the relationships among a group of sites or structures (such as buildings) in an area, either where the sites (structures) are related (in form, scale, pattern, date or use) as a group, or contribute to a wider historic landscape or townscape which is significant through its diversity of elements illustrative of its historic development.

1.2.16 Context - This represents the immediate setting of a site, building or area, and its intelligibility within its surroundings. It covers the quality and detail of its immediate visual context, and the value of any associations within that with other elements either of related period and class or as part of a palimpsest illustrating the historic development of its setting. The quality of the setting should be described, along with the intelligibility of the heritage assets and the integrity of their multiple elements (where appropriate) in that setting. This should include the more intangible characteristics, such as tranquillity and other attributes which give a sense of place to the heritage resource and help to determine appreciation of it. It should be borne in mind that not all elements of the heritage are aesthetically pleasing; these can still be important characteristics and contribute to appreciation and understanding of the resource.

1.2.17 Period - This should be a representation of the date of origin and duration of use of the heritage resource described. For most archaeological sites, a period description will be based on the illustrative list given in Table 2 (Medieval, for example); for some buildings this will also be the case. However, most buildings and other types of structure will be capable of description in more specific and useful terms, which should be used to provide as clear a description of the feature as possible (such as Victorian, C19, 1865). It would also be appropriate to include special historic or architectural associations and interest which contribute to the character of the heritage assets, such as the architect responsible, historic events taking place or notable figures linked to the place. Table 2, provided at the end of this section, presents a set of illustrative terminologies that can be used to identify both heritage form and period.

1.2.18 Heritage Indicators are as follows.

1.2.19 The Scale it Matters column is about the geographical scale at which the features (attributes) matter to both policy makers at all levels and to local stakeholders (residents, interest groups, businesses, etc.). Do they contribute to fulfilment of policy commitments at a national level (e.g. government obligations under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention; Heritage policies in PPG 15 and PPG 16), or Regional or Local objectives (such as those set out in Structure or Local Development Plans). Some regional and local objectives might also represent national policy aims, simply expressing local contributions to larger targets. Where this is the case the higher policy levels addressed should be flagged up in the Worksheet. The scale at which characteristics, described against each feature, matter will not necessarily be on the same scale as the attribute itself. An extensive historic land/townscape, such as parks and gardens, or Conservation Areas, may primarily matter to local communities and users, while another similar (in geographic extent) area may relate to events of national significance, such as historic battlefields (e.g. Hastings).

1.2.20 The Rarity column should contain information on the heritage and its features in terms of its representational value (some features are very rare either nationally or within their locality, others are relatively common and typical and so important characteristics of a period or region, etc.), the diversity of the class into which it falls (some classes are represented by numerous regional or typologically distinct types, others are relatively simple and exhibit little variation), and potential (some heritage assets provide opportunities for research, understanding, interpretation and presentation which may not be available at other examples due to prevailing circumstances). The fragility and vulnerability of the heritage should also be considered, since while there may be numerous surviving examples of a site or attribute they might all be so fragile or under such threat that widespread losses could entirely change the level of survival of the whole class (e.g. non-designated urban features subject to development pressures; coastal archaeology threatened by patterns of erosion). It has to be borne in mind in this section that the heritage is not a replaceable or substitutable resource.

1.2.21 The Significance column should contain information on designations, which may suggest levels of significance for the heritage resource. However, significance is not wholly based on designations, statutory or otherwise, and additional information should be incorporated to appraise significance within its context. This should allow for a greater degree of differentiation between individual features, which might all have the same level of designation or none, but which are not all of equal significance within their context. It may also allow for discrimination within designated areas, since not all parts of an area are necessarily of equal significance. Non-designated elements of the heritage may also be of great significance, either through recognition in other, non-designation formats or as major contributors within a locality to identity or character. They may simply not be designated, but be of equivalent importance to those which are, as a result of the technicalities of legislative frameworks. The great majority of buildings and structures, areas, and monuments in the country will remain undesignated and have no statutory protection; they may still be significant, and this will be a matter for professional judgement based on available data, or dependent on the perceptions of other stakeholders. The subjectivity and application of professional judgement in appraising significance is an integral part of environmental management and should not be regarded as a weakness of it.

1.2.22 It is important to identify characteristics which are of special significance at local, regional or national scale. Although, under Scale it Matters, some features may be most important at a local level (and not matter significantly at regional or national level) they could be among the most valuable and characteristic elements within a local context and have particular value to local stakeholders. This will be an important factor in determining the level of impact in the subsequent sections. (This also applies at regional and national levels).

Assessment of Effect

1.2.23 The Impact column should contain an assessment of the impact of the proposals on the significance of the features identified and described in stages 1 and 2 of the framework. The extent to which the identified Significance will be either compromised or enhanced should be made clear, including the mitigating effects of any amelioration incorporated formally into the proposals or allowed for as standard good practice. The detail available for a specific scheme, probably including an Environmental Statement, should make this impact appraisal straightforward. Where this level of information is not available, it should still be possible to make an informed judgement on likely impacts, whether positive or negative, substantial or slight; the level of certainty attached to these judgements should be explained.

Final Assessment Scores and Definitions of Effect

1.2.24 The definitions shown in Table 1 are based on the seven point scale for scoring of impact. The terminology used in the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) has the advantage of being symmetrically consistent. These definitions are based on and relate to national objectives, including those of English Heritage. They should also be generally applicable in regional and local contexts. However, they are not fixed and finite, and the local processes of character description and capital appraisal may require flexibility to accommodate the complexity of the heritage resource in an area or the perceptions of the relevant stakeholders. Definition of the terms for the heritage criterion is as follows (NB that any use of the term 'Site' is as a shorthand for monuments, buildings, areas, land/townscapes and so on; it is not restricted to statutory designated or spatially restricted locations, or archaeological features):

1.2.25 Provision should be made for extreme appraisal results which have such a very large negative (or much less likely, positive) impact that they lie outside of the standard seven point assessment score. This permits the flagging up of unusually significant proposals, so that they can be seen clearly to lie outside the normal range of outcomes. An explanation of the reasons for this should be set out in the Qualitative Comments box. Guidance on this aspect of scoring is given in the general introduction, above.

Following the appraisal methodology set out above, and summarised in Worksheet 1, the Appraisal should be of the proposals as a whole, and not a series of individual site-based scores. Positive and negative impacts should not be scored separately and balanced out, since that process is already included within the appraisal of impacts made within Stages 2 and 3 of the appraisal process, and already includes credit for appropriate mitigation action either previously identified or assumed as good standard practice. Good design should already have removed or mitigated the worst avoidable impacts, and so those which remain in the Large (or Very Large) category should have this clearly set out in the final assessment score.

Qualitative Comment on the Effects of an Option

1.2.27 This field in the Appraisal Summary Table provides an essential opportunity to summarise the overall effect of the proposals on the heritage resource. The comments are space limited and must be concise, drawing out the most significant effects and the main justifications for the assessment score given. This field will provide decision makers with the first step back on the audit trail from the assessment score into the information on which it has been based. It will be informed by the appraisal of impact carried out in Stage 3 of the process, and by the descriptions given to illustrate and define scores as set out in Table 1; however, it should not be a simple and repetitive restatement of that, and should also draw on the specific features and their values set out in Stages 1 and 2 of the process in order to inform decision makers and any subsequent review of the reasons for arriving at the assessment score. This opportunity to comment will be especially useful in setting out how contrasting impacts on aspects of the heritage have been balanced to reach the assessment score derived from the process.

1.3 Methodology for Strategies

The level of detail available for the potential impacts of any proposals at a strategic level will usually be considerably less than for corridor/project studies where route and mode data, as well as information on the heritage resource likely to be affected, will be more readily accessible. Although information on the heritage resource within an area for a strategic study might be fairly detailed, it is possible that the impact data will be restricted to changes in vehicle kilometerage or gross landtake within the area. In such cases the heritage data might even be too detailed, when set against the limited impact data, to enable any generally applicable and useful conclusions to be reached. It will be useful to list the main data sources used in this strategic appraisal, so that decision makers can assess the level of confidence to place in the conclusions, and consider whether any additional information is required before reaching their decisions. Where there is insufficient data to enable both the heritage, and potential impacts on it, to be fully appraised using the methodology set out above for Plans, then it may only be possible to state whether a proposal has one of the following impacts.

Positive - where it contributes to the protection or enhancement of the heritage; this could apply either where the probable outcome is clearly beneficial, or where mixed positive and negative impacts could apply but the positive substantially outweighs the negative.
Negative - where it is detrimental to the protection of the heritage; this could apply either where the probable outcome is clearly detrimental, or where mixed negative and positive impacts could apply but the negative substantially outweighs the positive.
Mixed - where it has a combination of impacts on the heritage, but data resolution does not yet allow a conclusion on the balance between them or their magnitude.
Indeterminate - where the data level does not allow any secure conclusions to be reached, or it is possible that the proposals will have minimal and insignificant impacts on the heritage.

1.3.2 The appraisal of these impacts must be carried out against policy objectives, in the absence of adequate data for a full appraisal as in the Methodology for Plans. This should be carried out using Worksheet 2 (provided at the end of the TAG Unit), setting out a list of objectives down the left hand side under the three categories of National, Regional and Local. The level of objectives, and the specific detail and number of policy objectives to be gone into, will depend on both the scale at which the study is being carried out and the relevance of the objectives to the proposals in the study. The appraisal as to how each objective is met, positively, negatively, mixed or indeterminate, is indicated in the columns across the Worksheet, where a brief description should be given as to how this result is derived and why.

1.3.3 The Worksheet should then provide the basis for an overall assessment score for the proposals, derived from the individual impacts against objectives. This should be amplified by the Qualitative Comments field, which should set out why the assessment score was reached and how it represents the summary of impact on the individual objectives. Almost all overall Scores will derive from a mixture of positive and negative objective scores, probably along with some which are mixed or indeterminate. In general, the process will be based on weighting the objectives according to whether they are of national (highest), regional or local (lowest) importance. There may have to be a balanced view taken within each category as well as a summary view across all three in order to produce an overall Score. This Comments section is therefore very important in explaining the derivation of the overall score from this more complex underlying pattern. It will be essential to flag up conflicts between different objectives and how well the study proposals meet them. These Worksheet results would then feed into the strategic level AST.

2 Application of TAG to Highway Schemes

This section provides advice on the links between TAG's treatment of the heritage of historic resources sub-objective and the advice given in Volume 11 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), which deals with the environmental assessment of highway projects. An explanation of the correspondence between the advice set out in TAG and DMRB is given in Applying the multi-modal new approach to appraisal to highway schemes (TAG Unit 2.6).

2.1 Methods and Worksheets

2.1.1 Worksheet 2 in this TAG Unit requires the historic resource to be described in Form, Survival, Condition, Complexity, Context and Period, each of which is assessed against the following indicators: Scale it Matters, Significance and Rarity. Guidance is given above on each feature and indicator. The approach encourages looking at the wider heritage landscape (townscape) understanding habitation, development and past and present perceptions rather than the isolated spot data and individual archaeological 'sites'. The impact is recorded in the fifth column. The assessment score is derived from table 1, which gives a seven point scale based on the importance of the heritage resource and the degree to which it would be affected. Note that, at all Stages, the assessment score and its basis must be discussed with English Heritage and their views taken into account.

2.1.2 DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 2, Cultural Heritage, describes the information needed and this, in a different order, will fill the GOMMMS worksheet 2.

2.2 Data Transformation from DMRB to TAG

Data Requirements	Modify DMRB Output?	Data Sources
Worksheet Description of characteristic features of heritage Appraise environmental capital Impact on 7 point scale	Re-order Re-order Yes	DMRB 11.3.2.3, 4 and 9 DMRB 11.3.2 Use advice set out in this Unit
AST Summary of character and effects Assessment score	Yes Yes	Summarise worksheet Transfer from worksheet

Data Requirements

Modify DMRB Output?

Data Sources

Worksheet

Description of characteristic features of heritage

Appraise environmental capital

Impact on 7 point scale

Re-order

Yes

DMRB 11.3.2.3, 4 and 9

DMRB 11.3.2

Use advice set out in this Unit

AST

Summary of character and effects

Assessment score

Yes

Summarise worksheet

Transfer from worksheet

2.3 DMRB Stages 1 and 2/ TAG

2.3.1 Stage 1 DMRB requires a plan showing areas of archaeological and built heritage importance from desktop study; statement of significance and further surveys needed. Corridors affected by alternatives should be shown.

2.3.2 Stage 2 DMRB will include updated Stage 1 data plus information from walkover survey, and replies from consultees.

Table 1 Heritage of Historic Resources - Definitions of Overall Assessment Scores

Score	Comment
Large beneficial (positive) effect	The proposals would: provide potential, through removal, relocation or substantial mitigation of very damaging or discordant existing impacts (direct or indirect) on the heritage, for very significant or extensive restoration or enhancement of characteristic features or their setting make a major contribution to government policies for the protection or enhancement of the heritage remove or successfully mitigate existing visual intrusion, such that the integrity, understanding and sense of place of a highly valued area, a group of sites or features of national or regional significance is re-established.
Moderate beneficial (positive) effect	The proposals would: provide potential, through removal, relocation or mitigation of damaging or discordant existing impacts on the heritage, for significant restoration of characteristic features or their setting contribute to Regional or Local policies for the protection or enhancement of the heritage enhance existing historic landscape/townscape character through beneficial landscaping/mitigation and good design.
Slight beneficial (positive) effect	The proposals: are not in conflict with national, regional or local policies for the protection of the heritage. restore or enhance the form, scale, pattern or sense of place of the heritage resource through good design and mitigation remove or mitigate visual intrusion (or other indirect impacts) into the context of locally or regionally significant heritage features, such that appreciation and understanding of them is improved.
Neutral effect	The proposals: are not in conflict with, and do not contribute to policies for the protection or enhancement of the heritage maintain existing historic character in a landscape/townscape have no appreciable impacts, either positive or negative, on any known or potential heritage assets are a combination of slight positive and negative impacts, on locally significant aspects of the heritage do not result in severance or loss of integrity, context or understanding within a Historic landscape.
Slight adverse (negative) effect	The proposals would: be in conflict with local policies for the protection of the local character of the heritage have a detrimental impact on the context of regionally or locally significant assets, such that their integrity is compromised and appreciation and understanding of them is diminished damage locally significant heritage features for which adequate mitigation can be specified not fit well with the form, scale, pattern and character of a historic landscape/townscape/area.
Moderate adverse (negative) effect	The proposals would: be out of scale with, or at odds with the scale, pattern or form of the heritage resource be intrusive in the setting (context), and will adversely affect the appreciation and understanding of the characteristic heritage resource be in conflict with local or regional policies for the protection of the heritage be damaging to nationally significant heritage assets, resulting in loss of features such that their integrity is compromised, but not destroyed, and adequate mitigation has been specified be a major direct impact on regionally or locally significant heritage, resulting in loss of features such that their integrity is substantially compromised, but adequate mitigation can be specified.
Large adverse (negative) effect	The proposals would: have a major direct impact on nationally significant heritage assets such that they are lost or their integrity is severely damaged have a moderate direct impact on or compromise the wider setting of multiple nationally or regionally significant heritage assets, such that the cumulative impact would seriously compromise the integrity of a related group or historic landscape/townscape have a major direct impact on regional heritage assets, such that their integrity is lost and no adequate mitigation can be specified be highly intrusive and would seriously damage the setting of the heritage resource, such that its context is seriously compromised and can no longer be appreciated or understood be in serious conflict with government policy for the protection of the heritage, as set out in PPG 15 and PPG 16 be strongly at variance with the form, scale and pattern of a historic landscape/townscape.

Table 2 Heritage - Form and Period Terminology

Form terminology (Illustrative, not comprehensive):

Building (inhabited - roofed)

Building (uninhabited - would generally be roofed)

Ruined Building (generally once roofed)

Standing Structure (bonded, such as a free-standing wall)

Ruined standing structure

Standing Structure (unbonded, such as drystone work)

Earthwork (positive upstanding feature, including those with substantial stone component such as hedge banks)

Negative earthwork (ditch)

Accumulated deposits (urban archaeological deposits of stratified material)

Flat/non-accumulated deposits (cropmarks, soilmarks and so on)

Conservation Area

Park or Garden (registered)

Battlefield

Historic urban core zone

Historic building complex (e.g. terrace, house with outbuildings)

Period terminology (mainly archaeological sites; not comprehensive for later or more specific dates):

Lower Palaeolithic (pre 30,000 BC)

Upper Palaeolithic (30,000 - 10,000BC)

Mesolithic (10,000 - 3,500BC)

Neolithic (3,500 - 2,000BC)

Bronze Age (2,000 - 700BC)

Iron Age (700BC - AD43)

Roman (AD43 - AD450)

Early Medieval (AD450 - AD1066)

Medieval (AD1066 - AD1540)

Post Medieval (AD1540 onwards)

Worksheet 1 Environment: Heritage of Historic Resources - Plan Level

Worksheet 2 Environment: Heritage of Historic Resources - Strategy Level

3. Further Information

The following documents provide information that follows on directly from the key topics covered in this TAG Unit.

For information on:	See:	TAG Unit number:
Appraisal Summary Table	Transport Appraisal and the New Green Book The Appraisal Process	TAG Unit 2.7 TAG Unit 2.5
The Environmental Capital Approach	The Environmental Capital Approach	TAG Unit 3.3.6
The correspondence between the advice set out in TAG and DMRB	Applying the multi-modal new approach to appraisal to highway schemes	TAG Unit 2.6
Heritage policies	PPG 15 and PPG 16	See Planning Policy Links

4. References

Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)

UNESCO World Heritage Convention

ODPM (previously DETR) Regional Planning Guidance, Planning Policy Guidance Note 15(PPG15)

ODPM (previously DETR) Regional Planning Guidance, Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 (PPG16)

5. Document Provenance

This Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit is based on Chapter 4, Section 9 of Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies Volume 2 (DETR, 2000). Section 2 is taken from Applying the Multi-Modal New Approach to Appraisal to Highway Schemes (Bridging Document).

Technical queries and comments on this TAG Unit should be referred to:

Integrated Transport Economics and Appraisal (ITEA) Division
Department for Transport
Zone 3/08 Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR
itea@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Tel 020 7944 6176
Fax 020 7944 2198

Updated: April 2009

Documents

Guidance documents - Expert

3.3: The Environment Objective

TAG unit 3.3.9: The Heritage of Historic Resources Sub-Objective

WebTAG

Department for Transport

Transport agencies

Transport bodies

UK Government

Key