Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Consultations/2007_current_consultations/hpr_whitepaper07.htm
http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7609
From today's SALON, the bulletin of the Society of Antiquaries:
The White Paper contents: a brief summary
National designation
• Unhelpful distinctions between buildings, monuments, parks, gardens, battlefields and so on will be swept away: all heritage assets will be rolled up into a single Register of Historic Buildings and Sites, held and managed by English Heritage, and the scope of designation will be expanded to include sites of early human activity that are not necessarily marked by above-ground structures.
• ‘Special architectural, historic or archaeological interest’ remains the only statutory basis for designation; thus ‘commercial / economic viability’ and other tests (such as whether a better building could be designed for the site) will not play a part in designation decisions.
• But to support those broad statutory criteria, a series of more detailed statements will be published for public consultation, setting out the factors to be taken into account when deciding which buildings and sites are considered worthy of national designation; in future designation the emphasis will be on under-protected aspects of the heritage and thematic programmes of protection.
• The present grading system (I, II* and II) will remain and will be extended to all nationally designated assets; those not currently graded will all be regarded as Grade I assets, pending a regrading review to be carried out by English Heritage.
• A standard proforma ─ a Historic Asset Record (HAR) ─ will explain what makes the asset significant, with a map, explanatory notes and bibliographical references; HARs will be accessible via an internet portal being developed by English Heritage (The Heritage Gateway).
• But HARs are not definitive: they will record what was known at the time of designation, but it is expected that new information will come to light as a result of subsequent investigation ─ it is not intended that designation should only cover what is described in the HAR.
• The process of designation will be democratised: designation criteria will be published, public consultation processes will apply in the case of new designations, local planning authorities and national amenity societies will be formally consulted on new designations, and there will be a right of appeal against decisions for those with an interest in the historic asset, including owners, consultees, applicants and local planning authorities.
• But appeals must be based on matters of fact: for example, that relevant material was not taken into account or has not been assessed appropriately.
Planning consent and development control
• Designation is the process of identifying assets that it would be desirable to preserve, but being on the register does not specify what will happen to those assets: that is the job of the consents process and the planning system, which is itself undergoing major reform (a new Planning White Paper is due later in March). The White Paper’s proposals are thus aimed at ensuring that the historic environment is placed at the heart of any new planning system that emerges.
• The consents process is to be reformed by merging Listed Buildings Consent and Scheduled Monuments Consent into one process ─ Historic Asset Consent ─ while marine assets will have their own consents system.
• Class consents will be retained: the exception is Class Consent No 1, relating to agricultural cultivation, where owners will be encouraged to take sensitive sites out of cultivation under various stewardship schemes.
• Heritage Partnership Agreements will be introduced (and have already been trialled by English Heritage), enabling the owners of complex heritage assets to bypass the consents process for routine and repetitive works ─ but HPAs are only likely to apply where the owners have a strong commitment to conservation, and are subject to review when circumstances change, such as new ownership or major development proposals.
• In the case of large-scale planning applications, strong encouragement is to be given to pre-application assessment and discussion; developers will be expected to show what they intend to do to mitigate the effects of major developments on designated assets.
Local delivery
• The statutory duty placed on local authorities to designate conservation areas and to draw up and publish proposals for their preservation and enhancement will remain; strong encouragement will be given to local authorities to make greater use of their powers to designate and protect the historic environment, using local lists, conservation areas and historic landscape characterisation as the means of identifying and managing local heritage.
• English Heritage will ‘publish new guidance on the outcomes local authorities should be seeking from their historic environment services’, and this, along with the forthcoming English Heritage Conservation Principles and standards and guidance published by professional conservation institutes (the IFA and IHBC), is seen as the basis for encouraging local planning authorities to ‘develop a clear vision for how they would like to develop their historic environment services in the future’.
• Effective planning for the historic environment at local level also needs people with the right skills, knowledge and understanding ─ well-trained and well-informed officers and elected members. This will be delivered through the existing English Heritage capacity building initiative called HELM (Historic Environment Local management).
• Planning decisions need to be informed by reliable information: a new statutory duty will be imposed on local planning authorities to maintain or have access to Historic Environment Records.
• HERs will be GIS-based and bring together various historic environment datasets, including local lists and conservation area appraisals, SMRs, aerial photos, historic photos and maps, fieldwork reports, books, journals, Buildings at Risk and Monuments at Risk registers.
• HERs will be accessible through the Heritage Gateway, and English Heritage will support local authorities in developing HERs through training, capacity building and standards.
Back to contents ^
Reactions to the White Paper
The initial response from those who attended the White Paper launch was that the White Paper proposals are very positive ─ particularly welcome is the emphasis throughout the White Paper on promoting the importance of the historic environment within the planning system. Gone are the ambivalent positions of past DCMS statements on the heritage: this document is predicated on the assumption that it is entirely reasonable to protect the historic environment from unnecessary damage or destruction. It also pays credit to the skilled and resourceful people who have devoted their lives ─ in a professional and in a voluntary capacity ─ to the cause of heritage protection. It acknowledges (at long last) that levels of participation in the historic environment are high and rising ─ ‘whether through visiting, volunteering, or studying, substantial numbers of people choose to access or care for heritage in their free time’, the Executive summary says (page 6), adding that ‘levels of engagement are good compared with other parts of the cultural sector’.
Overall, the verdict is that the White Paper provides a good framework for constructing robust, modern, effective historic environment services at national and local level. Our General Secretary David Gaimster summed this up when he said that: ‘This is the start of a process, and we now have an agenda for the future. Our Fellow Peter Beacham, and all those many other Fellows who have worked over the last five years to help bring this White Paper to fruition, should be congratulated. We now look forward to working with the Government and civil servants to deliver the new regime.’
On behalf of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee, our Fellow Bob Yorke said: ‘We welcome the inclusion of the marine heritage in the Heritage Protection White Paper and await the proposals for heritage in the Marine Bill White Paper, which is due to be published on 15 March, before commenting on the totality of the proposed Government measures.’
The Archaeology Forum (TAF) welcomed the White Paper and said ‘there is a strong consensus of support from archaeological bodies for the White Paper’s proposals’. TAF also urged the Government to make rapid progress with those aspects of the White Paper that did not need to wait for legislative consent, and in particular for a revision of the statutory planning guidance given in PPG15 and PPG16 to define archaeological resources more comprehensively, to confirm that it is reasonable for the planning process to require opportunities for public participation, to confirm that it is reasonable, where appropriate, to require commercial work to be conducted by accredited historic environment professionals and to ensure proper provision for archiving and publishing completed excavations.
Where reservations were expressed, they focused on the cost of the White Paper reforms, pointing out that new and significant investment will be needed if the vision in the White Paper is to be realised. Some concern was also expressed about the degree to which responsibility will fall on local planning authorities whose record to date in recognising and protecting the historic environment is very variable ─ this much is even acknowledged in the White Paper (see section 1.4 paragraph 3, for example). Crucially, what happens at local level will be largely left to the discretion of the authorities themselves. One commentator said that ‘the White Paper talks of aspirations and visions for better delivery at local level, but acknowledges that there will be variable responses and different levels of service throughout the country ─ an odd admission given that one of the core aims of the White Paper’s proposals is to achieve consistency and a “unified approach”’.
Back to contents ^
Alison Taylor comments …
The long-awaited heritage White Paper for England and Wales, Heritage protection for the 21st century, was finally published last Thursday. It’s a long-winded document (seventy pages) with much repetition, ambiguity and the odd contradiction (see, for example, paragraph 49 on page 27, and paragraph 60 on page 29 ─ DCMS needs a stricter editor), and it places a lot of faith in administrative change (combining listed buildings and scheduled monuments in one register with addition of some public consultation) to solve the massive problems faced by those working in today’s heritage sector. Inevitably it skips the big issues of funding and of better legislation, but we must be pleased that it includes some promises that archaeologists have sought for years.
In particular, there is acceptance of a statutory duty for local authorities to maintain or have access to historic environment records (HERs), of better protection for the marine historic environment and the statement that ‘We will enhance protection of archaeological sites on cultivated land’. This will only be attempted through management agreements, although perhaps the removal of the defence of ignorance for damage to registered sites may mean that obvious constant damage is a prosecutable offence at last. There is a promise of ‘training and capacity building for HERs’, which hopefully means some recalcitrant local authorities are trained to realise they have responsibilities to historic sites and buildings and that county archaeologists have the capacity to retain staff.
That new resources are necessary to underpin all this change was a point frequently made at January’s Westminster Hall debate on the heritage, so we have to trust that English Heritage, Cadw and local authorities will get this extra funding. Parliamentary time is being sought for new legislation, which will be underpinned with new policy guidance that may at last include simple requirements for the proper publication, storage and treatment of finds and public participation for archaeological excavations. World Heritage Sites will also benefit from greater protection from inappropriate development, with a possible ‘buffer zone’ to protect the immediate WHS environment. It will be very interesting to see how this affects the imminent decision on roads at Stonehenge.
http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7609
From today's SALON, the bulletin of the Society of Antiquaries:
The White Paper contents: a brief summary
National designation
• Unhelpful distinctions between buildings, monuments, parks, gardens, battlefields and so on will be swept away: all heritage assets will be rolled up into a single Register of Historic Buildings and Sites, held and managed by English Heritage, and the scope of designation will be expanded to include sites of early human activity that are not necessarily marked by above-ground structures.
• ‘Special architectural, historic or archaeological interest’ remains the only statutory basis for designation; thus ‘commercial / economic viability’ and other tests (such as whether a better building could be designed for the site) will not play a part in designation decisions.
• But to support those broad statutory criteria, a series of more detailed statements will be published for public consultation, setting out the factors to be taken into account when deciding which buildings and sites are considered worthy of national designation; in future designation the emphasis will be on under-protected aspects of the heritage and thematic programmes of protection.
• The present grading system (I, II* and II) will remain and will be extended to all nationally designated assets; those not currently graded will all be regarded as Grade I assets, pending a regrading review to be carried out by English Heritage.
• A standard proforma ─ a Historic Asset Record (HAR) ─ will explain what makes the asset significant, with a map, explanatory notes and bibliographical references; HARs will be accessible via an internet portal being developed by English Heritage (The Heritage Gateway).
• But HARs are not definitive: they will record what was known at the time of designation, but it is expected that new information will come to light as a result of subsequent investigation ─ it is not intended that designation should only cover what is described in the HAR.
• The process of designation will be democratised: designation criteria will be published, public consultation processes will apply in the case of new designations, local planning authorities and national amenity societies will be formally consulted on new designations, and there will be a right of appeal against decisions for those with an interest in the historic asset, including owners, consultees, applicants and local planning authorities.
• But appeals must be based on matters of fact: for example, that relevant material was not taken into account or has not been assessed appropriately.
Planning consent and development control
• Designation is the process of identifying assets that it would be desirable to preserve, but being on the register does not specify what will happen to those assets: that is the job of the consents process and the planning system, which is itself undergoing major reform (a new Planning White Paper is due later in March). The White Paper’s proposals are thus aimed at ensuring that the historic environment is placed at the heart of any new planning system that emerges.
• The consents process is to be reformed by merging Listed Buildings Consent and Scheduled Monuments Consent into one process ─ Historic Asset Consent ─ while marine assets will have their own consents system.
• Class consents will be retained: the exception is Class Consent No 1, relating to agricultural cultivation, where owners will be encouraged to take sensitive sites out of cultivation under various stewardship schemes.
• Heritage Partnership Agreements will be introduced (and have already been trialled by English Heritage), enabling the owners of complex heritage assets to bypass the consents process for routine and repetitive works ─ but HPAs are only likely to apply where the owners have a strong commitment to conservation, and are subject to review when circumstances change, such as new ownership or major development proposals.
• In the case of large-scale planning applications, strong encouragement is to be given to pre-application assessment and discussion; developers will be expected to show what they intend to do to mitigate the effects of major developments on designated assets.
Local delivery
• The statutory duty placed on local authorities to designate conservation areas and to draw up and publish proposals for their preservation and enhancement will remain; strong encouragement will be given to local authorities to make greater use of their powers to designate and protect the historic environment, using local lists, conservation areas and historic landscape characterisation as the means of identifying and managing local heritage.
• English Heritage will ‘publish new guidance on the outcomes local authorities should be seeking from their historic environment services’, and this, along with the forthcoming English Heritage Conservation Principles and standards and guidance published by professional conservation institutes (the IFA and IHBC), is seen as the basis for encouraging local planning authorities to ‘develop a clear vision for how they would like to develop their historic environment services in the future’.
• Effective planning for the historic environment at local level also needs people with the right skills, knowledge and understanding ─ well-trained and well-informed officers and elected members. This will be delivered through the existing English Heritage capacity building initiative called HELM (Historic Environment Local management).
• Planning decisions need to be informed by reliable information: a new statutory duty will be imposed on local planning authorities to maintain or have access to Historic Environment Records.
• HERs will be GIS-based and bring together various historic environment datasets, including local lists and conservation area appraisals, SMRs, aerial photos, historic photos and maps, fieldwork reports, books, journals, Buildings at Risk and Monuments at Risk registers.
• HERs will be accessible through the Heritage Gateway, and English Heritage will support local authorities in developing HERs through training, capacity building and standards.
Back to contents ^
Reactions to the White Paper
The initial response from those who attended the White Paper launch was that the White Paper proposals are very positive ─ particularly welcome is the emphasis throughout the White Paper on promoting the importance of the historic environment within the planning system. Gone are the ambivalent positions of past DCMS statements on the heritage: this document is predicated on the assumption that it is entirely reasonable to protect the historic environment from unnecessary damage or destruction. It also pays credit to the skilled and resourceful people who have devoted their lives ─ in a professional and in a voluntary capacity ─ to the cause of heritage protection. It acknowledges (at long last) that levels of participation in the historic environment are high and rising ─ ‘whether through visiting, volunteering, or studying, substantial numbers of people choose to access or care for heritage in their free time’, the Executive summary says (page 6), adding that ‘levels of engagement are good compared with other parts of the cultural sector’.
Overall, the verdict is that the White Paper provides a good framework for constructing robust, modern, effective historic environment services at national and local level. Our General Secretary David Gaimster summed this up when he said that: ‘This is the start of a process, and we now have an agenda for the future. Our Fellow Peter Beacham, and all those many other Fellows who have worked over the last five years to help bring this White Paper to fruition, should be congratulated. We now look forward to working with the Government and civil servants to deliver the new regime.’
On behalf of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee, our Fellow Bob Yorke said: ‘We welcome the inclusion of the marine heritage in the Heritage Protection White Paper and await the proposals for heritage in the Marine Bill White Paper, which is due to be published on 15 March, before commenting on the totality of the proposed Government measures.’
The Archaeology Forum (TAF) welcomed the White Paper and said ‘there is a strong consensus of support from archaeological bodies for the White Paper’s proposals’. TAF also urged the Government to make rapid progress with those aspects of the White Paper that did not need to wait for legislative consent, and in particular for a revision of the statutory planning guidance given in PPG15 and PPG16 to define archaeological resources more comprehensively, to confirm that it is reasonable for the planning process to require opportunities for public participation, to confirm that it is reasonable, where appropriate, to require commercial work to be conducted by accredited historic environment professionals and to ensure proper provision for archiving and publishing completed excavations.
Where reservations were expressed, they focused on the cost of the White Paper reforms, pointing out that new and significant investment will be needed if the vision in the White Paper is to be realised. Some concern was also expressed about the degree to which responsibility will fall on local planning authorities whose record to date in recognising and protecting the historic environment is very variable ─ this much is even acknowledged in the White Paper (see section 1.4 paragraph 3, for example). Crucially, what happens at local level will be largely left to the discretion of the authorities themselves. One commentator said that ‘the White Paper talks of aspirations and visions for better delivery at local level, but acknowledges that there will be variable responses and different levels of service throughout the country ─ an odd admission given that one of the core aims of the White Paper’s proposals is to achieve consistency and a “unified approach”’.
Back to contents ^
Alison Taylor comments …
The long-awaited heritage White Paper for England and Wales, Heritage protection for the 21st century, was finally published last Thursday. It’s a long-winded document (seventy pages) with much repetition, ambiguity and the odd contradiction (see, for example, paragraph 49 on page 27, and paragraph 60 on page 29 ─ DCMS needs a stricter editor), and it places a lot of faith in administrative change (combining listed buildings and scheduled monuments in one register with addition of some public consultation) to solve the massive problems faced by those working in today’s heritage sector. Inevitably it skips the big issues of funding and of better legislation, but we must be pleased that it includes some promises that archaeologists have sought for years.
In particular, there is acceptance of a statutory duty for local authorities to maintain or have access to historic environment records (HERs), of better protection for the marine historic environment and the statement that ‘We will enhance protection of archaeological sites on cultivated land’. This will only be attempted through management agreements, although perhaps the removal of the defence of ignorance for damage to registered sites may mean that obvious constant damage is a prosecutable offence at last. There is a promise of ‘training and capacity building for HERs’, which hopefully means some recalcitrant local authorities are trained to realise they have responsibilities to historic sites and buildings and that county archaeologists have the capacity to retain staff.
That new resources are necessary to underpin all this change was a point frequently made at January’s Westminster Hall debate on the heritage, so we have to trust that English Heritage, Cadw and local authorities will get this extra funding. Parliamentary time is being sought for new legislation, which will be underpinned with new policy guidance that may at last include simple requirements for the proper publication, storage and treatment of finds and public participation for archaeological excavations. World Heritage Sites will also benefit from greater protection from inappropriate development, with a possible ‘buffer zone’ to protect the immediate WHS environment. It will be very interesting to see how this affects the imminent decision on roads at Stonehenge.