All Change!

[Gareth Hughes]

After years of Planning Policy Guidance notes 15 and 16, Planning Policy Statement 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment" snuck out with little fanfare yesterday to replace them.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps5

While not as bad as the draft version that was consulted upon last year, it still makes flimsy, woolly and in places quite dreadful reading when compared with the robust and conservation-minded PPGs.

And we are going to have to get used to "heritage asset" - though these, it seems, can include anything, listed, scheduled, conservation area, registered park, garden or battlefield - or not formally designated at all.

The Practice Guide which accompanies it, however, is not as bad as the Policy Statement might lead one to suspect. I only hope that it too will be read very carefully by all involved in the planning process. The PPS is written in places as a charter for PVCu window salesmen.

 

[JoceAndChris]

"HE1.2 Where proposals that are promoted for their contribution to mitigating climate
change have a potentially negative effect on heritage assets, local planning
authorities should, prior to determination, and ideally during pre-application
discussions, help the applicant to identify feasible solutions that deliver similar
climate change mitigation but with less or no harm to the significance of the
heritage asset and its setting.
HE1.3 Where conflict between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage
assets is unavoidable, the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change
should be weighed against any harm to the significance of heritage assets in
accordance with the development management principles in this PPS and national
planning policy on climate change."

That bit looks good, so thick curtains and shutters then, not PVCu and double glazing. It's very vaguely and fence-sittingly worded though.

 

[Pford75]

Joce - I'm a little more cynical than you obviously :?

I see the woolly wording and overly complex prose as absolutely ripe for (mis)interpretation by homeowners/councils however they see it.

Where conflict between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage
assets is unavoidable, the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change
should be weighed against any harm to the significance of heritage assets

As we've seen demonstrated on here only too easily, the view of most on the climate lobby is that personal choice/possessions always come a poor second to the overriding good of the mass population. If you happen to value your 'heritage asset' (in much the same way that some prefer a larger vehicle), you will become the property equivalent of a 'gas guzzler' and your period property will be as popular and acceptable as a 'Chelsea tractor'. True - many have the right intentions, but I am certain that this will be exploited by those who pursue politics of envy as a way to penalise owners of period properties.

I wouldn't dream of doing so....but I imagine that if I really wanted double-glazing, I could present a compelling case on the basis of this guidance. :evil:

 

[robgil]

on the subject of windows , what if you have no central heating what so ever would they still require you to fit double glazing?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The "Vision Statement" that accompanied the publication of the guidance paints a slightly more measured, and indeed, possibly useful, picture of green issues:

· Climate Change.
Perhaps the biggest long-term challenge we face is that of climate change, with the Climate Change Committee suggesting that in order to meet our long term targets, we will need to virtually eliminate emissions from households and the Household Energy Management Strategy, published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and Department for Communities and Local Government making it clear that the scale of the challenge will require action across the board. The historic environment can be part of the solution we seek, but too often it is still believed to be at the heart of the problem of energy consumption. The real relationship is a complex one, and more research is needed to explore how people operate within buildings, historic and otherwise, and to understand their actual energy performance. There is a need for more sophisticated tools for measuring energy use in traditional buildings and for assessing the true value of adaptive changes, and in some cases a need to create more suitable alternatives. At the same time we must consider how best to mitigate the impact of already occurring climate change on the historic environment. Often this will involve trying to find solutions that both mitigate and adapt to climate change that keep the integrity of the historic environment intact. There will be hard decisions to make in the future, for example in defining the point at which conservation is unfeasible in areas subject to coastal erosion, and in considering how best to ensure all homes and buildings across the UK play their part in cutting demand for energy and reducing carbon emissions.

 

[Penners]

this will involve trying to find solutions that both mitigate and adapt to climate change that keep the integrity of the historic environment intact

But I don't see any clear indication, anywhere, of which takes priority - climate change mitigation or maintaining the historic environment.

You can make statements about 'finding solutions' until you're blue in the face, but ultimately there will always be head-to-head conflicts, where arbitration has to find in favour of one side or the other. So if we're to avoid prolonged conflict and subjectivity, then vague, idealistic statements about needing to find solutions are useless. There have to be clear-cut rules.

 

[JoceAndChris]

vague, idealistic statements about needing to find solutions are useless

If they defer the day when we all have to dry-line our walls and hermetically seal our houses with plastic then maybe all this woolly talk of finding solutions has a place. But yes, if clear cut rules could really be in favour of heritage (like a rule to say you have so much fuel per capita, or a rule to say everyone must wear a minimum of 3 layers) I'd comply for a change.

 

[biffvernon]

The "Vision Statement" that accompanied the publication of the guidance paints a slightly more measured, and indeed, possibly useful, picture of green issues:

· Climate Change.
Perhaps the biggest long-term challenge we face is that of climate change, with the Climate Change Committee suggesting that in order to meet our long term targets, we will need to virtually eliminate emissions from households and the Household Energy Management Strategy, published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and Department for Communities and Local Government making it clear that the scale of the challenge will require action across the board. The historic environment can be part of the solution we seek, but too often it is still believed to be at the heart of the problem of energy consumption. The real relationship is a complex one, and more research is needed to explore how people operate within buildings, historic and otherwise, and to understand their actual energy performance. There is a need for more sophisticated tools for measuring energy use in traditional buildings and for assessing the true value of adaptive changes, and in some cases a need to create more suitable alternatives. At the same time we must consider how best to mitigate the impact of already occurring climate change on the historic environment. Often this will involve trying to find solutions that both mitigate and adapt to climate change that keep the integrity of the historic environment intact. There will be hard decisions to make in the future, for example in defining the point at which conservation is unfeasible in areas subject to coastal erosion, and in considering how best to ensure all homes and buildings across the UK play their part in cutting demand for energy and reducing carbon emissions.

I think that is so good it's worth repeating. Sorry Penners but I don't believe we want clear cut rules. The issues just aren't clear cut. How the occupants of a building behave is more important than the structure of the building. And never forget Jevon's Paradox.

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . except that Governments don't have a good track record at ignoring short-term savings in favour of longer-term ones.

How the occupants of a building behave is more important than the structure of the building.

Absolutely, but in the absence of clear rules there will always be arguments and, unfortunately, those wielding power will usually prevail. Thus (as I understand it) the only form of ventilation in kitchens and bathrooms deemed to be acceptable by building inspectors is an extractor fan rather than simply opening a window, even though the building regs don't actually specify an extractor fan.

Perhaps personal carbon caps/budgets could be the answer and those of us shivering in draughty old period properties could sell a portion of our personal carbon allowances to those who wish to live in tee-shirts all year round. Although I can't imagine such a rationing mechanism would be very well received by society at large - not yet anyway.

 

[Pford75]

I'm more worried about the situation where someone purchases a period property and wishes to 'vandalise' it. In the past, the CO was on very solid ground in refusing applications for double glazing etc.

Now, i believe it would be easier for someone to present the case that they were 'saving the world' by installing double glazing. In this case, the onus shifts back to the CO to prove that the historical/architectural significance outweighs the 'saving the world' argument. Whether it does or not, I am not qualified to say...but this will generate piles of extra work for CO's and inappropriate changes are likely to slip through simply because the poor CO is swamped and cannot summon the time/energy to fight every case.

Any situation which moves from clear decisions to more ambiguous arguments will always result in increased documentation! I just can't agree that this is a good thing.

 

[biffvernon]

The trouble with clear rules is that they always end up as the wrong rules. With ambiguous rules one has the opportunity to win the argument on merit.

 

[Flyfisher]

Always?
I take your point about ambiguity allowing a window of opportunity to argue for the right decision but I also fear that Pford75 may be right regarding the extra workload such arguments create for already hard-pressed COs. And given (I believe) the statutory requirement to make planning decisions within a fixed period of time after submission it's surely inevitable that many inappropriate decisions will slip through. Also, it only takes one PP owner to push through replacement DG to create a precedent that might open the flood gates.

Any COs here care to comment?

 

[Penners]

The trouble with clear rules is that they always end up as the wrong rules. With ambiguous rules one has the opportunity to win the argument on merit.

That's a remarkably optimistic view of human nature, Biff. I have to say that my impression of ambiguous rules is that they usually end up allowing the unscrupulous rich (notice how I avoided using the word 'developer'?) to ride roughshod over them.

 

[biffvernon]

Indeed.

But how come all these period properties we cherish were built before planning and other rules were invented, yet now we have loads of rules the houses are rubbish?

 

[Penners]

Ooh - a bit of a sweeping statement!

Let's bear in mind that the period properties we cherish are mostly the ones that have survived from days of yore. In other words, the good ones - or the ones that have regularly had money spent on them to keep them in a decent condition.

Let's also grit our teeth and give a nod in the direction of today's housebuilders and the regulations under which they are obliged to ply their trade.

The developers are producing properties that are affordable by the majority of people.

The regulations have given us houses which universally have staircases that are safely manageable, ceiling heights that are comfortable, floors and walls that are dry, windows that are a good size, roofs that work, electrical systems that don't overload, running water, flushing toilets and so on and so on and so on.....

I'm in the vanguard of those who would rather live in a caravan in the middle of a field than in a Bivos four-bedroom (two en-suite) executive ranch-style villa with double garage, on a ten-acre development called Buttercup Meadow. And I abhor a great deal of the aesthetics of modern housing.

But I still think that we have a great deal to thank the building regulations for in general (whilst cursing them daily in the particular :wink: ).

 

[JoceAndChris]

Brilliant, as ever, Penners.

I wonder what proportion of housing in the UK is a "heritage asset". And amongst those assets, I wonder what proportion have their lovely original (or nice old draughty timber ) windows and big leaky chimneys. Surely it can't be a hugely significant number? Why can't we just be exempt from the rules that suit other kinds of properties?

 

[Schoolmarm]

If you count all the many, many, terraced type properties that Pathfinder is currently intent on demolishing there are probably a lot more than we think.

If our village is anything to go by though, every old thing inside has to be torn out the minute they are sold on.

 

[JoceAndChris]

So sad. I guess you're right, there are thousands of sweet, unlisted Victorian terraces getting ruined all over the UK. Are they counted as heritage assets? I wish they were, our town is comprised largely of them but in most cases they've been severely disfigured by unsympathetic windows, amongst other things. It spoils what could otherwise be quite an attractive town, and helps destroy civic pride too I think.

 

[Horace]

Further to Penners' comment re the benefits of building regs - haven't they also given us an average square footage smaller than most other European countries? Or perhaps I should say, whilst they have been perscriptive in a million [sometimes pedantic] ways they haven't for some time specified a minimum civilised size for a house?

What we will never know, is what would have happened if we had no regulation. It's just possible, that the people that built crap houses would have gone out of business. It is also the case that there are some appalling practices that still go on despite regulation. In my discussions with builders, I would suggest that it is their desire to do a quality job that seems to count for more than complying with regulations. Funnily enough, the building firms that survive long term are the ones with the best reputations for a quality job. That is particularly the case in the current climate.

As a confirmed free marketeer in the realm of internet trading, I am surprised Penner's would argue for regulation!!

 

[Penners]

Further to Penners' comment re the benefits of building regs - haven't they also given us an average square footage smaller than most other European countries?

Surely, Horace, it is economic pressures that have given us that. In other words, property prices. This is a very small island, with very high population density, the net result of which is that we need to build a lot of houses on not much land, because that land is so ferociously expensive.

What we will never know, is what would have happened if we had no regulation.

Quite so. Just as you'll never know whether it was the cough mixture or Mother Nature that made your cough better. :wink:

As a confirmed free marketeer in the realm of internet trading, I am surprised Penner's would argue for regulation!!

I wasn't actively arguing for it. I was defending it against what I saw as unjust criticism. To be honest, I don't see a broad enthusiasm for a free market and certain areas of regulation as being mutually exclusive. It's a question of arriving at a sensible compromise between the two.

This all getting much too cerebral. Time for glass of something.