d="" to="" urban="" development.（3）Lainentablv，archaeology frequently ignores the possibilities of this course of action and does not have the resources necessary to use the urban standard and the planning figures as other methodological instruments (alongside those traditionally used archaeology) to solve the archaeological impact of urban development.（4）Given that the planning figures are the most efficient wav of regulating the ground plan and classify and organize the territory, they are also a useful instrument for organizing an action of urban Archaeological Patrimony within the plan. This outlining must extend from the element under protection towards its surroundings, and must seek the conservation of that space, as well as guarantee the control of the agents or activities that may act negatively upon them.（5）The adequate organization of these spaces needs not only to apply the existing ground legislation, but also develop in each particular case (whether a city or a superior organiziii2 community) a defined regulation. This regulation, adapted to the specification of the elements and surroundings to be protected, provides an adequate organization of the spaces that, due to their own historical values and potential social function, thus require it. To achieve this, it will be necessary to not only limit their use, but also to establish solutions for their management and, even, for their socio-cultural use.'>

The necessary urban development of our cities must be compatible with the conservation of the Cultural and Historical Patrimony. This is particularly true in the case of those cities, numerous in the Iberian Peninsula and Europe, that are the result of a long historical tradition, often uninterrupted during almost two thousand years. （1）The preservation of the Archaeological Patrimony in these cities, however, conies up against conflicts difficult to resolve，with very differine and opposed positions: the demand and the price of the ground, the liamionious development of the city, the presence of infrastructures and services, the aspiration of the citizens to worthy housing, the business projects of the promoters or the working plans of the constructors.The common resource established to solve these conflicts is Urban Planning. （2）Arcliaeolouv must take part actively in the elaboration of this planning，and use its abilities positively to prevent archaeological problems and look for an acceptable solution fi.oni the point of view of the protection of the Archaeological Patrimony with regai'd to urban development.（3）Lainentablv，archaeology frequently ignores the possibilities of this course of action and does not have the resources necessary to use the urban standard and the planning figures as other methodological instruments (alongside those traditionally used archaeology) to solve the archaeological impact of urban development.（4）Given that the planning figures are the most efficient wav of regulating the ground plan and classify and organize the territory, they are also a useful instrument for organizing an action of urban Archaeological Patrimony within the plan. This outlining must extend from the element under protection towards its surroundings, and must seek the conservation of that space, as well as guarantee the control of the agents or activities that may act negatively upon them.（5）The adequate organization of these spaces needs not only to apply the existing ground legislation, but also develop in each particular case (whether a city or a superior organiziii2 community) a defined regulation. This regulation, adapted to the specification of the elements and surroundings to be protected, provides an adequate organization of the spaces that, due to their own historical values and potential social function, thus require it. To achieve this, it will be necessary to not only limit their use, but also to establish solutions for their management and, even, for their socio-cultural use.