Heritage Data Governance in Regeneration: Lessons from England’s High Street Heritage Action Zones

Theoretical Framework and Regulatory Context

Within the UK heritage sector, data governance operates within a complex regulatory framework that shapes institutional responsibilities and professional practices. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 establishes statutory duties for heritage protection, whilst the Historic Environment Records (HER) provide the primary information infrastructure for local heritage knowledge (Historic England 2023). However, these frameworks evolved primarily around physical heritage protection rather than digital data stewardship, creating systematic gaps in governance arrangements.

The emergence of FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) within research contexts has provided frameworks for evaluating data quality (Wilkinson et al. 2016), whilst CARE principles (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics) have offered ethical guidance for community-generated content (Carroll et al. 2020). Archaeological data management has achieved relative systematisation through the OASIS (Online Access to the Index of archaeological investigations) framework (OASIS n.d.), mandating deposition with the Archaeology Data Service for publicly funded investigations (Richards 2016). However, equivalent requirements do not exist for above-ground heritage documentation, creating systematic disparities in preservation outcomes despite comparable heritage significance.

The intersection of heritage and planning presents particular challenges for data governance. Planning processes generate substantial documentary records through statutory requirements, yet these materials often remain siloed within local authority systems with limited integration into broader heritage infrastructures (Patrick 2021). Community engagement activities produce valuable cultural documentation, but lack established preservation pathways (Flinn 2007; Caswell & Cifor 2016). Commercial consultants create technically sophisticated datasets but often retain intellectual property rights that limit public access despite public funding (Jeffrey 2015).

Recent scholarship has highlighted significant challenges in heritage data management, particularly around issues of accessibility, interoperability, and long-term preservation (Richards 2017; Kansa & Kansa 2018). However, the application of these frameworks within regeneration contexts remains limited, with most heritage data governance research focusing on museums, archives, or academic projects rather than planning-led interventions.

The High Street HAZ programme offers a unique lens for examining heritage data governance due to its scale, diversity, and hybrid governance structure. Operating through partnerships between Historic England, local authorities, commercial consultants, and community organisations, the initiative generated datasets across multiple domains: planning and conservation, community wellbeing, and heritage research. This multi-stakeholder environment created natural experiments in data management, revealing how different institutional cultures, professional norms, and community priorities shape the lifecycle of heritage information.

This paper addresses these gaps through detailed examination of heritage data practices within three High Street HAZ case studies: Northallerton (North Yorkshire), focusing on digital innovation and community archiving; Kirkham (Lancashire), emphasising heritage-based social prescribing and wellbeing; and Chester (Cheshire), centring on built heritage conservation within a nationally significant historic environment. These sites were selected to represent different geographical contexts, project emphases, and governance arrangements, enabling comparative analysis of how local capacity, institutional partnerships, and community priorities shape data outcomes.

The research contributes to several scholarly conversations. Within heritage studies, it extends critical analysis of digital governance beyond traditional cultural institutions into planning and regeneration contexts (Smith 2006; Harrison 2013). Within planning scholarship, it foregrounds the cultural and archival dimensions of development processes, areas often overlooked in policy analysis (Pendlebury 2012). Within digital humanities and information science, it provides empirical evidence of how data governance operates within complex multi-stakeholder environments, offering lessons for other interdisciplinary collaborative projects (Borgman 2015).

The paper’s central argument is that heritage data governance within regeneration contexts reflects broader tensions between short-term project delivery and long-term cultural stewardship, between local autonomy and national coordination, and between commercial interests and public access. These tensions are not merely technical or administrative but reflect deeper questions about who controls heritage knowledge, how cultural value is recognised and preserved, and what responsibilities accompany public investment in heritage research.

Methodological Justification

The complexity of heritage data governance within regeneration contexts necessitated a multi-faceted research approach capable of examining both institutional frameworks and lived practice. Semi-structured interviews provided depth and nuance in understanding how different stakeholders navigate data management challenges, revealing informal practices and institutional cultures that shape outcomes beyond formal policies. Questionnaires enabled systematic comparison across stakeholder groups and geographic contexts, identifying patterns that might not emerge from qualitative data alone. Data audits provided objective assessment of actual preservation outcomes, enabling evaluation of gaps between stated intentions and achieved results.

This triangulation approach was essential because heritage data governance operates simultaneously at multiple levels: individual professional practice, institutional policy, and systemic regulatory frameworks. No single method could adequately capture this complexity, whilst the combination enabled cross-validation of findings and identification of systematic patterns across different data sources.

The mixed-methods design also addressed the challenge of researching within professional networks where participants might be reluctant to discuss institutional failures or policy gaps in interview settings. The questionnaire provided anonymous reporting mechanisms, whilst data audits offered independent verification of preservation outcomes regardless of stakeholder perceptions or claims.

Case Study Selection

Three High Street HAZ locations were selected for detailed analysis: Northallerton, Kirkham, and Chester (Figure 1). These sites were chosen to represent different geographical regions (Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Cheshire respectively), varying scales of urban context (market town, small town, and historic city), and distinct project emphases (digital innovation, community wellbeing, and built heritage conservation). This purposive sampling strategy enabled examination of how local capacity, institutional partnerships, and community priorities shaped data governance outcomes across different contexts.

Figure 1

The selection was constrained to sites within England to maintain consistency with the High Street HAZ programme structure and Historic England’s regulatory framework. Whilst this geographical limitation affects the generalisability of findings to other national contexts, it enables detailed analysis of how English heritage governance frameworks operate in practice. The temporal scope focused primarily on the period 2020–2024, corresponding to the main High Street HAZ delivery phase, with supplementary data collection continuing through 2024 to assess post-project outcomes.

Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews formed the primary qualitative data collection method, conducted throughout the High Street HAZ programme period from 2021 to 2024. This longitudinal approach enabled examination of how data practices evolved during project delivery and provided insight into changing priorities and emerging challenges.

Interviewed participants were selected through purposive sampling to represent key stakeholder groups involved in heritage data creation, management, and use. These included Historic England staff (HAZ Project Officers responsible for coordinating multiple sites), local authority personnel (HAZ Project Leads managing individual locations, built environment officers, and conservation staff), heritage professionals (architects, consultants, and contractors), community group representatives, and cultural programme participants.

The interview guide was structured around four thematic areas derived from the research questions: data creation and reuse practices, sharing and accessibility arrangements, preservation and archiving approaches, and perceived value and legacy of heritage datasets (Appendix 1). Questions were designed to be open-ended, allowing participants to reflect on their experiences whilst ensuring consistent coverage of key topics across interviews.

Most interviews were conducted face-to-face at participants’ workplaces or community venues to build rapport and enable discussion of specific datasets or platforms in situ. However, interviews with Historic England regional staff and some commercial consultants were conducted via video call due to geographical constraints. Interviews typically lasted 60–90 minutes and were audio-recorded with participants’ consent.

Following established qualitative research protocols, the researcher engaged in reflexive practice throughout the data collection process (Rose 1997; Sultana 2007). As a researcher embedded within the heritage sector through collaborative doctoral partnership arrangements, particular attention was paid to potential conflicts of interest and the influence of professional networks on data access and interpretation. Regular supervision and peer discussion helped maintain analytical distance whilst leveraging insider knowledge to navigate technical and institutional complexities.

Questionnaire

A structured questionnaire was developed to capture systematic data on data management practices across the broader High Street HAZ programme (Appendix 2). The questionnaire employed predominantly closed-ended questions using seven-point Likert scales, supplemented by open-ended items to capture qualitative context (Finstad 2010; Dawes 2008). Seven-point scales were selected to maximise response variance whilst avoiding the complexity of ten-point alternatives that can reduce response quality in electronic surveys.

Five separate questionnaire versions were created to reflect different stakeholder roles and contexts: HAZ Project Officers, HAZ Project Leads, and architects/consultants for each of the three case study locations. This tailored approach ensured questions remained relevant to participants’ specific experiences whilst maintaining consistency in core themes.

The questionnaire was implemented using Qualtrics survey software and distributed via email using personalised mail merge techniques to improve response rates. Distribution occurred at multiple timepoints throughout the High Street HAZ programme to capture changing practices and perceptions over time.

Limitations of Quantitative Analysis: The modest response rate (n = 29) necessitates careful interpretation of quantitative findings. Rather than claiming statistical representativeness, the questionnaire data is treated as indicative of trends within this specific professional network. Percentages are presented to show patterns within the respondent group but cannot be generalised to the broader heritage sector without further research. This limitation was anticipated given the specialised nature of the research population and time constraints within project environments. The questionnaire data primarily serves to triangulate qualitative findings and identify areas requiring further investigation rather than providing statistically robust conclusions.

Data Audits

Systematic data audits were conducted to examine the actual outputs and preservation outcomes of heritage data creation across the three case studies. These audits focused on publicly accessible repositories where High Street HAZ-related materials might reasonably be expected to appear local authority planning portals, Historic Environment Records, the Archaeology Data Service, and project-specific websites or digital platforms.

For each case study, planning applications submitted during the High Street HAZ period (January 2020 to March 2024) within the designated high street conservation areas were identified and analysed. This yielded comprehensive datasets of planning-related documentation including heritage statements, design and access statements, photographs, architectural drawings, and supporting technical reports.

Each planning application was documented to identify data types present, file formats used, sources cited, and evidence of data reuse from previous applications or external sources. Particular attention was paid to the use of historical photographs, maps, and heritage research, as these materials often indicate connection to broader heritage datasets and archives.

Additional audits examined community-generated content through project websites, social media platforms, and cultural programme outputs. This proved more challenging due to the ephemeral nature of many digital platforms and the informal governance arrangements surrounding community data. Where materials had been removed or become inaccessible, this was noted as evidence of data vulnerability.

The data audit methodology was designed to assess not only what heritage data was created, but its discoverability, accessibility, and apparent integration with established heritage infrastructures. This approach enabled evaluation of the gap between data creation and effective preservation, revealing patterns of systematic loss or marginalisation of heritage information.

Integration of Methods

The three methodological approaches were designed to complement each other in addressing the research questions. Interviews provided detailed understanding of stakeholder experiences and institutional cultures, revealing why certain practices developed and how governance challenges were navigated in practice. The questionnaire systematised these insights across a broader sample, identifying common patterns and quantifying the prevalence of specific practices. Data audits provided independent verification of outcomes, enabling assessment of whether stated intentions translated into effective preservation and accessibility.

This methodological triangulation was particularly important given the sensitive nature of institutional critique within professional networks. Interviewed participants might be reluctant to highlight failures in their own organisations, whilst questionnaire anonymity enabled more candid reporting of systemic challenges. Data audits provided objective evidence independent of stakeholder perceptions, enabling critical assessment of governance effectiveness regardless of individual claims or institutional representations.

Analytical Framework

Analysis employed an iterative approach combining deductive analysis based on established heritage data governance frameworks (particularly FAIR and CARE principles) with inductive identification of themes emerging from the empirical material (Charmaz 2006). Initial analysis focused on identifying practices related to data creation, sharing, preservation, and governance across the three case studies.

Comparative analysis examined similarities and differences in approaches across sites, stakeholder groups, and project types. This revealed systematic patterns that transcended individual project characteristics, pointing to structural factors influencing heritage data governance. Cross-case synthesis enabled identification of both successful practices and systemic barriers that could inform recommendations for future programmes.

Throughout the analysis, attention was paid to power dynamics and institutional hierarchies that shaped data governance outcomes. The research recognised that data practices are not neutral technical choices but reflect broader patterns of authority, resource distribution, and professional culture within the heritage sector (Kitchin 2014; Taylor 2017).

Ethical Considerations

The research received ethical approval from the University of York and was conducted in accordance with Historic England’s research ethics guidelines. All participants provided informed consent for interview participation and audio recording. Questionnaire responses were anonymised during collection and analysis.

Particular care was taken regarding community-generated data and informal archives, following principles of ethical engagement with community knowledge (Carroll et al. 2020). Where participants requested anonymity or expressed concerns about institutional critique, these preferences were respected through appropriate data handling and reporting practices.

Data Reuse Patterns and Accessibility

Data reuse was widespread across all High Street HAZ strands, but patterns of usage revealed significant barriers to accessing existing heritage information (Appendix 3). Within planning processes, statutory requirements drove consistent reuse of specific dataset types, particularly Historic England listing records (appearing in 30% of Northallerton and 20% of Chester applications), historical maps for map regression analysis (18% of Northallerton, 6% Kirkham and 24% of Chester applications), and previous planning decisions (27% of Northallerton and 6% of Chester applications). However, this reuse was often superficial, with consultants copying and pasting text from statutory sources rather than engaging critically with heritage significance assessments.

The questionnaire data (Appendix 4) revealed that 57% of HAZ Project Leads reported reusing existing datasets within their High Street HAZ work, with local repositories being the most frequently accessed resource (83.33%). Historic England datasets were widely used (66.67%) (Table 1), validating investment in national platforms such as the Heritage Gateway and National Heritage List for England. However, Historic Environment Records were significantly underutilised (41.67%) despite their statutory role as “the primary source of information about the historic environment of a local area” (Historic England 2023).

A critical finding emerged regarding data accessibility and reuse likelihood. Materials stored in easily discoverable locations, particularly those indexed by search engines or available through familiar platforms, were consistently reused, whilst those requiring specialist access or institutional mediation remained largely unused. As one heritage professional noted during interviews:

This accessibility paradox was particularly evident in Chester, where despite extensive Historic England research on the medieval Rows available through the Archaeology Data Service (Brown 1999), planning applications showed minimal engagement with this resource. Instead, applicants relied on readily available materials such as photographs discoverable through search engines or basic historical maps from free online sources (Figures 2 and 3). The contrast between available scholarship and actual usage highlighted the critical importance of data discoverability and access mechanisms.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Community engagement projects demonstrated different reuse patterns, with hands-on interaction with physical archival materials proving particularly valuable for wellbeing outcomes. In Kirkham, participants’ engagement with the Kirkham in Amounderness Local History and Heritage collection at St Michael’s Church enabled what project coordinators described as opportunities for people to be:

The tactile nature of original documents, maps, and photographs facilitated storytelling and memory-sharing in ways that digital alternatives could not replicate.

Facebook groups emerged as unexpected but significant heritage data repositories, particularly the “Kirkham & Wesham Memories of the Past” group, which provided access to otherwise private photographic collections. However, the reliance on commercial social media platforms for heritage data sharing raised questions about long-term accessibility and preservation, issues that became acute when project websites and social media accounts became inactive after funding ended.

Heritage Data Creation Practices

The High Street HAZ programme generated diverse datasets across multiple formats and contexts, but creation practices varied significantly depending on professional domain and regulatory framework. Planning-related data creation was extensive but highly standardised, with all applications (100%) containing PDF submission of core documents, supplemented by photographic evidence (74% of applications) and technical drawings (65% elevations and 63% plans of applications).

However, the predominance of PDF formats created significant challenges for long-term reusability. Whilst PDFs ensure document integrity and universal readability, they severely limit computational analysis and data extraction. Quality degradation was commonly observed during format conversion, with metadata loss, character corruption, and image compression compromising evidential value. In several instances, crucial information such as data source references was truncated or corrupted during PDF conversion (Figure 4), undermining the traceability of heritage evidence.

Figure 4

Archaeological investigations demonstrated markedly different data creation practices. All below-ground archaeological work followed established workflows requiring registration through OASIS (Online Access to the Index of archaeological investigations) and deposition with the Archaeology Data Service. This systematic approach contrasted sharply with above-ground heritage documentation, which lacked comparable archival requirements despite often documenting equally irreplaceable historical fabric.

The disparity was particularly evident in Chester, where consultant-produced building condition surveys, architectural documentation, and heritage assessments were delivered as PDFs to planning portals without systematic integration into Historic Environment Records or national repositories. Even technically sophisticated output such as 3D models (Figure 5) and drone photography remained in commercial custody despite their potential value for heritage management and public engagement, shared only as flat 2D images in PDF format.

Figure 5

Community-generated data represented the most diverse and innovative category of heritage data creation. The Northallerton Heritage Hub exemplified best practice in this domain, systematically digitising community-contributed materials (Figure 6) and recording oral histories in uncompressed WAV format following British Library and Oral History Society guidelines, whilst establishing clear custodianship arrangements with the North Yorkshire County Records Office. As the project coordinator noted:

Figure 6

Conversely, Kirkham’s wellbeing programme produced valuable community outputs, including collaborative maps (Figure 7), scrapbooks, and creative works, but lacked systematic digitisation or archival planning. The emphasis on physical, tactile interaction with heritage materials, whilst beneficial for immediate wellbeing outcomes, created vulnerability for long-term preservation without additional intervention.

Figure 7

Data Management Planning and Awareness

The research revealed alarming gaps in systematic data management planning across the High Street HAZ programme. Questionnaire responses indicated that over 65% of participants were unfamiliar with Data Management Plans (DMPs), and amongst those who recognised the term, only 2 out of 28 had implemented DMPs within their High Street HAZ work (Table 2). This represented a significant departure from research sector norms, where DMPs are increasingly mandated by funding bodies.

The absence of systematic data planning created cascading effects throughout project lifecycles. Without advance consideration of archival requirements, appropriate file formats, or preservation pathways, heritage data often defaulted to storage within the data creators’ organisational servers. This created substantial variations in data quality and accessibility, even within single projects.

Storage arrangements reflected the ad hoc nature of data management planning. Most heritage data was stored on internal online drives (75%) or local council systems (17.86%), with limited consideration of long-term accessibility beyond immediate project needs, with only 20% of respondents depositing their data in formal repositories (Tables 3 and 4).

The questionnaire revealed widespread concern about data loss, with 56% of respondents agreeing that valuable datasets were being lost (Table 5). When datasets were perceived as being lost, participants identified the primary causes as absence of publication requirements (100%), archival requirements (93%), requirements for data to be archived (79%) and public access requirements (79%) (Table 6). These responses suggested that data governance failures reflected systemic policy gaps rather than individual oversight.

When data was deposited, respondents primarily used text-based file formats such as PDF and DOCX, supplemented by specialised formats including JPEG images, audio files, and paper copies (Table 7). The predominance of PDF format in both creation and archiving practices reflected professional norms prioritising document integrity over computational accessibility.

Further challenges in data management were evident in data sharing practices. Whilst formal outputs such as listings updates and photographic surveys followed established archival protocols, embedding these datasets within the broader programme proved problematic. As one Historic England team member observed:

Community data sharing presented different but equally complex challenges. The Heritage Hub in Northallerton developed sophisticated approaches to balancing individual ownership with collective benefit, enabling contributors to retain legal ownership whilst facilitating systematic preservation through the County Records Office. Copyright complexities were acknowledged by project staff:

The absence of clear intellectual property frameworks created particular vulnerabilities for community-generated content. Without explicit licensing arrangements, materials contributed through social media platforms, community workshops, or informal documentation remained subject to platform terms of service and individual contributor preferences, limiting potential for systematic preservation or academic reuse.

Digital Preservation and Platform Precarity

The research revealed significant risks to long-term digital preservation arising from reliance on commercial platforms and short-term funding arrangements. Multiple project websites and digital resources became inaccessible during or immediately after the High Street HAZ programme period, demonstrating what digital preservation scholars term “digital dark ages” (Conway 2010).

In Kirkham, the closure of the “Kirkham Treasures” website resulted in the loss of cultural programme outputs that had been accessible only through that platform (available via archived copy captured on 06 Feb 2025: https://web.archive.org/web/20250206153722/https://kirkhamtreasures.co.uk/) (Kirkham Treasures 2025). Similarly, the Northallerton Heritage Hub website faced uncertainty beyond its initial five-year domain registration, despite containing significant community-generated heritage content.

The platform precarity was particularly acute for innovative digital outputs such as augmented reality applications and interactive heritage trails (Figure 8). These digital innovations were engaging but fragile, reliant on ongoing maintenance and shifting platform compatibilities. Social media platforms such as the “Kirkham & Wesham Memories of the Past” Facebook group functioned as community archives yet remained vulnerable to corporate policies and platform changes. By contrast, established repositories such as the Archaeology Data Service, Historic England databases, and county archives offered durable preservation infrastructure, but institutional policies often led to poor integration with community content, leaving socially valuable outputs exposed to loss.

Figure 8

Governance Challenges and Data Management Disparities

Despite this value, the High Street HAZ illustrated significant challenges in heritage data governance. Variability in governance and ownership led to inconsistencies across the initiative. Northallerton excelled in professional data archiving through its partnership with North Yorkshire County Records Office, establishing clear custodianship arrangements and formal deposit agreements. This contrasted sharply with Kirkham’s informal community custody arrangements, where valuable wellbeing programme outputs remained vulnerable despite their social significance, and Chester’s consultant-controlled datasets which remained fragmented despite superior technical quality.

The research reveals systematic hierarchies in heritage data treatment reflecting professional cultures rather than intrinsic data value. Archaeological investigations achieved systematic preservation through established OASIS workflows, whilst above-ground heritage documentation of comparable significance remained within local planning systems without integration into broader heritage infrastructures. This disparity cannot be attributed to technical differences but reflects how regulatory frameworks create divergent institutional expectations, with archaeological work operating under planning conditions mandating comprehensive archiving whilst above-ground heritage documentation faces only advisory preservation guidance.

The Discovery Gap and Platform Precarity

The research identifies a critical “discovery gap” where technical availability does not translate into practical accessibility. Historic Environment Records, designated as “primary sources of information about the historic environment,” were accessed by only 41.67% of survey respondents, whilst local archives achieved 83.33% usage rates. Chester’s extensive Historic England research on the medieval Rows received minimal engagement from planning applicants despite covering nationally significant heritage assets, with practitioners instead relying on readily available materials through search engines and social media platforms.

This finding demonstrates that data governance extends beyond creation and preservation to encompass discoverability and user experience. The most technically sophisticated datasets remain effectively invisible if they require specialist knowledge or institutional mediation to access. This has profound implications for evidence-based heritage management, as decisions may be based on readily available but limited information rather than comprehensive scholarly resources.

Platform precarity emerged as a systematic threat to digital heritage preservation, with multiple project websites, social media archives, and innovative digital formats becoming inaccessible during or shortly after programme completion. The closure of the “Kirkham Treasures” website and vulnerability of Facebook groups as heritage data repositories demonstrate fundamental mismatches between innovation timescales and preservation requirements, reflecting systematic bias towards outputs demonstrating immediate impact rather than long-term cultural value.

Community Data and Institutional Recognition

Community engagement components generated innovative and socially valuable heritage datasets yet proved most vulnerable to loss through inadequate governance arrangements. Community-generated content often captured intangible heritage absent from formal records but required distinctive governance approaches balancing institutional preservation capacity with community authority over cultural materials. The success of collaborative approaches, exemplified by Northallerton’s Heritage Hub partnership, demonstrates potential for inclusive heritage data governance that balances community authority with professional preservation standards.

However, the systematic exclusion of community-generated content from formal preservation pathways despite cultural value demonstrates how institutional priorities shape what heritage knowledge receives preservation, supporting arguments that heritage data governance is fundamentally political rather than technical (Gray, Gerlitz & Bounegru 2018). The tension between community expectations and institutional limitations highlights the need for transparent governance frameworks that acknowledge resource constraints whilst maximising preservation potential.

Implications for Heritage Data Governance

The findings reveal that governance frameworks, rather than resource constraints or technical limitations, determined long-term accessibility and preservation outcomes. The multi-stakeholder environment created natural experiments revealing both opportunities and constraints in collaborative heritage practice, extending analysis of heritage data governance beyond traditional museum or research frameworks into planning and regeneration contexts.

The research demonstrates how regeneration contexts create distinctive challenges requiring coordinated institutional responses. Without systematic approaches to data integration, valuable heritage information defaults to institutional priorities rather than public benefit considerations. The absence of mandatory governance frameworks created cascading effects throughout project lifecycles, with heritage data often defaulting to storage within data creators’ organisational servers, creating substantial variations in data quality and accessibility.

The study reveals three critical factors determining data governance outcomes:

• Institutional Capacity: Sites with dedicated archive partnerships and professional data management expertise achieved superior preservation outcomes regardless of project scale or technical sophistication. The contrast between Northallerton’s systematic approach and Kirkham’s ad hoc arrangements demonstrates how institutional support transforms data outcomes.

• Professional Culture: Archaeological data management success reflects established professional norms and regulatory requirements, whilst above-ground heritage documentation remains subject to individual practitioner discretion. This disparity suggests that professional standards and expectations shape outcomes more than technical capabilities.

• Access Mechanisms: The discovery gap between technically available and practically accessible heritage data highlights the critical importance of user experience in determining data utility. Sophisticated datasets remain effectively invisible without appropriate discovery and access mechanisms.

Policy Implications and Recommendations

The research suggests four priority interventions building on existing infrastructure whilst remaining achievable within current institutional constraints:

1. Mandatory Data Management Plans: All publicly funded heritage projects should require DMPs using standardised templates specifying file formats, repository destinations, and licensing arrangements. These should be proportionate to project scale but consistent in covering preservation, access, and intellectual property considerations.

2. Intellectual Property Reform: Clear clauses should ensure publicly funded datasets remain accessible for public benefit, with commercial providers retaining limited rights for specified periods rather than indefinite ownership. This would address the systematic barrier created by current consultancy arrangements.

3. Equivalent Archival Requirements: Above-ground heritage data should receive the same systematic archiving requirements as archaeological material, extending OASIS-style workflows to building recording, conservation documentation, and planning-related heritage research.

4. HER Investment: Historic Environment Records require targeted investment to become active governance partners rather than passive recipients, with enhanced discovery interfaces and systematic integration of community-generated content.

These changes would address core governance failures whilst establishing hybrid governance models that balance national consistency with local autonomy, ensuring governance frameworks match heritage data complexity whilst prioritising long-term public access over short-term commercial convenience.