Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
From this week's SALON, the newsletter of the Soc of Antiquaries...
Government response to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Report on ‘Protecting and Preserving Our Heritage’
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmcumeds.htm
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has published the government’s response to the report of the Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport on ‘Protecting and Preserving Our Heritage’, which was published on 20 July 2006 (see Salon 145). The report can be downloaded from the DCMS website.
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/archive_2006/cms6947_cttee_ppheritage.htm
The general thrust of the response is to suggest that local authorities, rather than central Government, will play a much bigger role in the protection and enhancement of the historic environment in future. This foreshadows the White Paper expected soon on Heritage Protection, and it raises the question of whether, given all the other demands that are made on local authority resources ─ from health, policing and housing to tackling obesity and teenage pregnancy and promoting interfaith understanding ─ heritage will get the resources and commitment it deserves.
The DCMS response tackles this issue by saying that ‘DCMS is working with English Heritage and local authority partners to develop a regular and systematic survey of historic environment services within individual local authorities. It is planned that these surveys will provide information on the numbers of staff in the service, what they do in terms of casework, advice, grant applications and other activities together with an identification of the workload of the service. Results will be publicly available, with the headline findings included in Heritage Counts.’
The report goes on to say that ‘new statutory duties are being considered as part of the Heritage Protection Review’, and that ‘a new PPS (Public Policy Statement) on the historic environment will be published that will set clear policy, priorities and expectations’, based on the present public policy guidance documents, PPG15 and PPG16.
The report also says that DCMS is fully committed to the Heritage Gateway portal that is being developed by English Heritage, ALGAO and IHBC to provide online access to the wealth of information held in Historic Environment Records. It says ‘we expect local authorities to continue to take forward the e-enablement of HERs as an integral part of their corporate information management and e-government strategies, with the priority being to ensure that they hold digital records relating to all designated historic assets in their area by 2010, and that their digital content is made available through the Heritage Gateway. This will ensure that local HERs add value to the national Register, which we also propose to make accessible through the Gateway.’
The report supports the view that archaeological sites need better protection from the damaging effects of ploughing, and says that the whole question of class consents is being looked at as part of the Heritage Protection Review, but it warns that the Government does not intend to prohibit ploughing on all scheduled ancient monuments ─ only in high risk cases ─ and it suggests that a way forward might lie in using agri-environment schemes to offer incentives to farmers not to plough.
On VAT relief for historic buildings maintenance, the report says that the policy in general is to target relief at specific schemes (such as the refund scheme for Listed Places of Worship), but that DCMS sees merit in a scheme that also helps private owners and has ‘passed a proposal to the Treasury for their consideration’. On the vexed issue of the Shimizu decision (the legal precedent that allows partial demolition of a listed building on the grounds that it is ‘alteration’ not ‘demolition’), DCMS says that it would like to see ‘analysis or evidence’ that this is a problem of such urgency that it needs to be addressed immediately ─ disappointing news for conservationists who know that gathering such evidence is extremely difficult.
More positive perhaps is the acknowledgement that there is a need for proper resourcing at the local level for the management and enhancement of World Heritage Sites. The report says that such sites are currently funded from the ‘normal budgets’ and don’t have any specific funding. DCMS ‘proposes to conduct research to look more closely into the costs and benefits associated with World Heritage status’ before coming to any further decision.
Finally, there is little succour for those who would like to see more central Government spending on the heritage. Answering criticism that a raft of conservation bodies ─ from English Heritage to the Historic Chapels Trust ─ struggle with flat funding and inadequate resources, DCMS takes the Spartan view that starvation is good for you because it leads to increased efficiency and reduced costs; great confidence is expressed in everyone’s ability to survive on lean rations and ‘meet future challenges’.
Government response to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Report on ‘Protecting and Preserving Our Heritage’
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmcumeds.htm
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has published the government’s response to the report of the Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport on ‘Protecting and Preserving Our Heritage’, which was published on 20 July 2006 (see Salon 145). The report can be downloaded from the DCMS website.
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/archive_2006/cms6947_cttee_ppheritage.htm
The general thrust of the response is to suggest that local authorities, rather than central Government, will play a much bigger role in the protection and enhancement of the historic environment in future. This foreshadows the White Paper expected soon on Heritage Protection, and it raises the question of whether, given all the other demands that are made on local authority resources ─ from health, policing and housing to tackling obesity and teenage pregnancy and promoting interfaith understanding ─ heritage will get the resources and commitment it deserves.
The DCMS response tackles this issue by saying that ‘DCMS is working with English Heritage and local authority partners to develop a regular and systematic survey of historic environment services within individual local authorities. It is planned that these surveys will provide information on the numbers of staff in the service, what they do in terms of casework, advice, grant applications and other activities together with an identification of the workload of the service. Results will be publicly available, with the headline findings included in Heritage Counts.’
The report goes on to say that ‘new statutory duties are being considered as part of the Heritage Protection Review’, and that ‘a new PPS (Public Policy Statement) on the historic environment will be published that will set clear policy, priorities and expectations’, based on the present public policy guidance documents, PPG15 and PPG16.
The report also says that DCMS is fully committed to the Heritage Gateway portal that is being developed by English Heritage, ALGAO and IHBC to provide online access to the wealth of information held in Historic Environment Records. It says ‘we expect local authorities to continue to take forward the e-enablement of HERs as an integral part of their corporate information management and e-government strategies, with the priority being to ensure that they hold digital records relating to all designated historic assets in their area by 2010, and that their digital content is made available through the Heritage Gateway. This will ensure that local HERs add value to the national Register, which we also propose to make accessible through the Gateway.’
The report supports the view that archaeological sites need better protection from the damaging effects of ploughing, and says that the whole question of class consents is being looked at as part of the Heritage Protection Review, but it warns that the Government does not intend to prohibit ploughing on all scheduled ancient monuments ─ only in high risk cases ─ and it suggests that a way forward might lie in using agri-environment schemes to offer incentives to farmers not to plough.
On VAT relief for historic buildings maintenance, the report says that the policy in general is to target relief at specific schemes (such as the refund scheme for Listed Places of Worship), but that DCMS sees merit in a scheme that also helps private owners and has ‘passed a proposal to the Treasury for their consideration’. On the vexed issue of the Shimizu decision (the legal precedent that allows partial demolition of a listed building on the grounds that it is ‘alteration’ not ‘demolition’), DCMS says that it would like to see ‘analysis or evidence’ that this is a problem of such urgency that it needs to be addressed immediately ─ disappointing news for conservationists who know that gathering such evidence is extremely difficult.
More positive perhaps is the acknowledgement that there is a need for proper resourcing at the local level for the management and enhancement of World Heritage Sites. The report says that such sites are currently funded from the ‘normal budgets’ and don’t have any specific funding. DCMS ‘proposes to conduct research to look more closely into the costs and benefits associated with World Heritage status’ before coming to any further decision.
Finally, there is little succour for those who would like to see more central Government spending on the heritage. Answering criticism that a raft of conservation bodies ─ from English Heritage to the Historic Chapels Trust ─ struggle with flat funding and inadequate resources, DCMS takes the Spartan view that starvation is good for you because it leads to increased efficiency and reduced costs; great confidence is expressed in everyone’s ability to survive on lean rations and ‘meet future challenges’.