Well, that was a complete waste of everyone's time....

[Gareth Hughes]

The Heritage Protection Bill, as predicted, was dropped from the Queen's Speech today and so we'll all have to carry on as usual.

 

[Nemesis]

It was a bit of a curate's egg though.

But the real reason was the fact that at last the government began to believe what all had been telling it, despite EH and DCMS denials - that it will cost money to implement, especially at local authority level... can't have that can we! Mind, it took a Comons Select Committee to persuade them.

More cash for heritage? Bluddy hell - not when we can have two weeks' of the Olympics to waste it on.

So Peter Beacham put off retiring in order to bring it this far...

Some say he brought the listing system to its knees too.

 

[Nemesis]

Next for the chop - World Heritage Sites?

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/5640.aspx

Well, can't have UNESCO flexing its muscles and asking that we actually protect them, can we?

That might cost too.

The price of everything, the value of nothing?

 

[biffvernon]

More cash for heritage? Bluddy hell - not when we can have two weeks' of the Olympics to waste it on.

Oh be fair. It lasts two and a half weeks.

 

[Nemesis]

Now remind me (and this lot...) how much cash has been diverted from heritage to the Olympics???


http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3129091&origin=BDbreakingnews

 

[Penners]

The Heritage Protection Bill, as predicted, was dropped from the Queen's Speech today.

Oh no! Does that mean that I'm not, after all, living in a "heritage asset"?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The Heritage Protection Bill, as predicted, was dropped from the Queen's Speech today.

Oh no! Does that mean that I'm not, after all, living in a "heritage asset"?

That bit was going to be dropped anyway, because so many people felt "Listed Building" sounded more, erm, marketable.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

PR-speak press release from Gloriana Thurley at EH:

HERITAGE PROTECTION REFORM

As you will be aware, pressures on the legislative timetable means the government has not found it possible to introduce the much anticipated Heritage Protection Bill in the 2008/9 Parliamentary session. However Ministers have stated that this is only a temporary delay and government remains committed to sustaining the momentum of the reform already established and carrying through the majority of the reforms proposed in the 2007 White Paper Heritage Protection for the 21st Century.

The government’s principal focus for reform will be a new Planning Policy Statement for the historic environment that will replace PPGs 15 and 16. This will provide a new policy framework in which we can work together. Alongside this, EH is taking forward a number of major initiatives that will include the publication of our research on resources in the sector, a major training and capacity building programme, and an exciting public engagement programme to set new priorities for national designation. Together this means that over two-thirds of the changes set out in the Bill can go ahead and pave the way for the introduction of the Bill as soon as Parliamentary time can be found.

Do visit our updated website http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/reform which includes today’s Ministerial statement and details of our reform programme. Our goal continues to be to create a more engaging, simple and improved system.

You have been crucial in getting us this far and your front line support will continue to be absolutely vital in keeping up the momentum for the changes I know you want to see. If I may, I would like to ask three things of you:

Please reassure your colleagues that the government is keen to maintain the momentum of heritage protection reform in which local authorities have already played a key role

Please encourage your authority to take up the practical and strategic assistance that English Heritage is offering over the next few years to build capacity at local level

Please promote the other components of the new reform programme within your authority.

We will keep you informed about progress over the forthcoming weeks and months and we will be contacting you about relevant training opportunities for you and your colleagues. In the meantime, thank you again for all your efforts. Your work is greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely

Dr Simon Thurley

Chief Executive

 

[Nemesis]

Ministers have stated... until next week when it will be forgotten.

an exciting public engagement programme to set new priorities for national designation.

Hmmmm. Listing by popular vote....

 

[Penners]

Ministers have stated... until next week when it will be forgotten.

I can't remember what will be forgotten.

 

[skier-hughes]

I'm afraid I'm a Pro Olympic's guy, though it's a shame that many other items have had to suffer in the short term on funding to pay for them, they will eventually start getting funding back afterwards, well so long as we have an economy!!!

There are many very good aspects to sports and what about the Paralympics, where we have so many true Olympians, amateurs and people who have overcome more adversity that we have talking and trying to save old buildings? I have a Beijing Athlete coming to a show I'm organising this weekend and I'm honoured that he is coming.
The amount of children now getting excercise that wouldn't if they weren't coming here?
The feel good factor that it will bring amongst the masses?

I know I'm in the minority here, but hey I'm happy :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

And of course we need to spend billions, a great deal of that cash diverted from an already pitifully small heritage budget to do it.

Otherwise we would have no sport at all.

 

[Nemesis]

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3129300&c=1&encCode=00000000018a35f3

Amanda Baillieu
The government has shelved heritage protection for short-term gain, but the long-term costs will be substantial


Going nowhere on heritage
05 December 2008

The government’s decision to drop the heritage protection bill suggests that it views overhauling the listing system as about as important as setting up a national database to monitor our telephone calls — also dropped amid mounting panic about the ailing economy — that is, not very.

The difference between the sinister-sounding telecommunications bill, which would have allowed the recording of not just mobile calls, but of emails and texts as well, was bordering on madness. The heritage protection bill was quite the opposite. It was viewed as sensible, long overdue, and it had cross-party support.

But did the government really drop the bill to allow for other, more timely legislation or is there something more to it? It had expressed concern that the bill would cost more to implement than it had calculated — English Heritage has already hired extra staff to cope with its new responsibilities — so it’s fair to assume that cost was a factor. More importantly, though, allowing the bill to proceed would have sent out a strong signal that heritage is a government priority, when patently it isn’t.

Leaving aside some recent decisions by various secretaries of state to allow towers to be built on sensitive and historic sites in London, the government simply doesn’t understand that continuity and a sense of history are best expressed by an environment that is properly funded and looked after, and that repairing buildings — from schools to terraced housing — is a far better way to build communities than knocking these buildings down and starting again.

But if one end of the heritage scale is represented by the rows of terraces in Liverpool that John Prescott wanted to demolish as part of the Pathfinder programme, at the other end is Stonehenge, where attempts to restore some dignity to the stones’ setting has so far taken 20 years and cost £25 million in public inquiries.

Ultimately, protection of the historic environment does not depend on legislation. It is dependent on having a government that has respect for the past — whether that be 5,000-year-old stones or 20th century architecture — and one capable of making brave decisions that will earn the respect of future generations, even if it goes against public opinion — as it would had it listed Robin Hood Gardens.

“Allowing the bill to proceed would have sent out a strong signal that heritage is a priority, when patently it isn’t.”

This week, BD reports on the latest attempt to build a visitor centre at Stonehenge. We’d like say that this time it might happen, if only because not to build a new facility by 2012 would cause severe embarrassment — but don’t hold your breath.

 

[Nemesis]

Meanwhile in Scotland:

Linda Fabiani: Saving our heritage is about more than castles in the air

Scotsman

Date: 05 December 2008
A progressive approach to the legacy of our past must have a sound economic basis, writes LINDA FABIANI

IT CAN be easy to view Scotland's historic environment only as a magnificent collection of spectacular ruins, castles and grand houses.

However, the sites and buildings – across the country – that mark the impact and achievements of 10,000 years of human occupation of Scotland are much more than that, instinctively they help us understand who we are as Scots.

They are vital assets for education, regeneration of places and communities, and tourism.

We are also coming to realise just how important our traditional buildings are in reducing Scotland's carbon footprint. Keeping older buildings in use is very resource efficient. The energy used by the people living or working in a building throughout its lifetime is a fraction of the energy used in its construction.

Many leading Scottish architects have drawn inspiration from past heritage. Castlemilk stables restoration in Glasgow, which was a joint winner of this year's RIAS Doolan Award, is, for instance, an excellent example of a contemporary design approach to adapting historic buildings for present-day community use.

Through our archaeological and built environment we can see Scotland's links across the world and the arrival here of many influences and different peoples in the distant and the recent past. This makes a valuable contribution to the vibrant mix that makes Scotland such a dynamic and interesting place to live, work and visit.

Scotland's historic environment has a key part to play in the Scottish Government's central purpose: to focus government and public services on creating a more sustainable country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth.

Towards our central purpose of sustainable economic growth we are simplifying and streamlining the public-sector landscape – putting in place systems to balance sustainable development while protecting what is precious. We are reducing the number of public bodies and have broken down the silos of the old Scottish Government departments to make cross-cutting policy development the norm.

New streamlined policy for the historic environment and for planning was launched at the Planning Summit on 28 October. We are developing a new, mature relationship between national and local government.

There are two main pieces of legislation that we use to protect and manage the historic environment. The 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act identifies nationally important "scheduled monuments" – archaeological sites and ruined buildings; carved stones and ancient settlements – where the aim is to maintain them as far as possible in the state that we have inherited them.

The other is the 1997 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act, that identifies buildings of "special architectural or historic interest". The listed-building consent process, which is led by local authorities, is intended to keep listed buildings in appropriate active use, while ensuring that what makes the building special is protected.

Most importantly, the legislation is about managing appropriate change, not about saying "no".

A handful of high-profile cases, where there is disagreement about the future of a monument or building, conceals the fact the system works very well. In the past 12 years only 17 out of 2670 applications for scheduled monument consent have been refused, with only one refused and one referred to a public inquiry in the past two years.

The Scottish Government does not want to impede sustainable development or to burden local government by imposing unnecessary new statutory controls and duties, when we can see that a lighter-touch approach is a better way of improving things.

That is why I announced to Parliament that Scottish Ministers will consult next year on a draft Bill to amend the existing heritage legislation. We will make the existing system more effective and efficient by introducing a Bill in the Scottish Parliament with tightly focused amendments to the 1979 and 1997 Acts.

We have already made improvements to the administration of the system – removing duplication of effort, devolving and clarifying responsibilities, developing capacity and understanding, and setting a clear, concise policy framework.

There is agreement across the UK that the current law to protect our rich marine heritage is not effective. The 1973 Protection of Wrecks Act is heavy-handed and inflexible. We have already consulted on new, flexible and proportionate provisions for the management and protection of the marine historic environment to be included in the Scottish Marine Bill. We believe that the marine historic environment is best managed in a holistic way, as part of a joined-up approach to the seas, rather than attached to a terrestrial heritage protection system, as is happening in England and Wales.

This Government wants what is best for Scotland – and that means finding a good balance between protecting what is important in our heritage with the need for Scotland to make its way in the world. We intend that our reforms in the management of the remains of our past will help demonstrate educational and economic value, and, of course, inspire those generations which will come after us.

Next spring, we will consult with the nation on how to amend heritage legislation in Scotland. During this process, we will establish dialogue with the Scottish public, heritage bodies, charities, local authorities, businesses and individuals to look at how we can improve the management of our Heritage.

Then we can introduce a Bill which considers – with real understanding –Scotland's historic environment.

• Linda Fabiani MSP is minister for Europe, external affairs and culture.

 

[Nemesis]

From the Soc of Antiquaries Salon:

Six years of heritage protection review ends with a whimper

The Queen’s Speech at the State Opening of the UK Parliament on 3 December 2008 was to have been the occasion on which a new Heritage Protection Bill would have been announced. Instead, the bill hit the buffers with the finality that some had been predicting for the last six months (knowing what was to come, Salon stopped reporting on the bill’s progress several months ago, and even the most optimistic of the bill’s supporters got the message when the Secretary of State for Culture used the launch of 'Heritage Counts' last month to depress expectations that there would be a bill).


The ostensible reason for the demise of the bill is the need to use parliamentary time for urgent measures to protect the economy from recession and ‘improve the lives of the people of Britain as they face exceptional global circumstances’. In fact, you will search in vain for such measures in what, by universal agreement, is a lacklustre and incoherent Queen’s Speech. Apart from the one bill to introduce a new compulsory banking code, there is nothing that looks like ‘last-minute’ legislation other than a hastily cobbled-together measure to ‘ban irresponsible alcohol promotions’.


One has to ask whether, outside of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, there was ever any serious intent to bring the Heritage Protection Bill to Parliament at all. After all, this was a bill that grew out of Tessa Jowell’s personal antipathy to heritage, and her determination to bring the heritage sector to heel. She felt the heritage voice was too powerful (!) and she had a particular dislike of ‘heritage experts’. Heritage protection laws had to be made more transparent and accountable; greater democracy was needed in the form of public consultation over listings proposals and a right of appeal.


Even so, the heritage community succeeded in turning the bill to advantage and introducing some much needed reforms into the draft. We have long campaigned for Historic Environment Registers to be put on a statutory basis — good local authorities do not need legislation to force them to provide a historic environment service backed by adequate data that can be used as a sound basis for decision-making on planning issues, but there are rogues among the planning authorities and legislation would have been useful in setting out what precisely a duty of care towards the historic environment really entails. A statutory requirement to review conservation areas and produce plans for their enhancement would also have been very positive in reminding planning authorities that conservation areas require active management, not just paper policies. Nor should we forget that this bill contained clauses that would have enabled the UK to conform to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.


A statement from the Department of Culture acknowledged that ‘many people will be disappointed that the Heritage Protection Bill has had to be put on hold for the time being’, but the DCMS now argues that some of the key reforms can be dealt with by means of non-statutory guidance. A draft Policy Planning Statement is promised for consultation before the Easter recess; this PPS will be ‘clear and up to date and bring together planning policy on all aspects of the historic environment — the built environment, archaeology and landscape — and underline their essential place in the planning context’. In addition, the DCMS says: ‘we will next year publish a clear statement of the Government’s vision and priorities for the historic environment — a statement that properly captures its value in the widest sense across government’.


The challenge facing the heritage community now is to ensure that we are not let down again. The Prime Minister is single-mindedly fixated on ‘economic prosperity’ and hints have already been dropped that PPGs 15 and 16 are seen as additional burdens on developers that make us uncompetitive with our European neighbours; all that is needed, this argument goes, is a PPS that conforms to the norm throughout the rest of Europe. We must work hard to ensure that Government (which means not just the relatively small and insignificant Department of Culture but also the really large departments of state that are responsible for planning and land use) does not use the new Policy Planning Statement to weaken protection for the heritage and water down existing principles. And if the PPS does turn out to be a thinly disguised developers’ charter when it is eventually published, we must be prepared to mount the biggest and loudest possible campaign to remind the Government that it has a duty of stewardship towards the heritage and that it is betraying the nation by helping those who thoughtlessly destroy our historic environment.

 

[Nemesis]

From the latest SALON:

More on heritage protection

The day after Salon warned that the forthcoming Planning Policy Statement that will replace PPGs 15 and 16 might not be the document that we all need and hope for, the Scottish Parliament issued a statement that seems to reinforced the message that ‘heritage is important but prosperity more so’ (it is a pity these are seen as mutually exclusive alternatives).


The statement, from Scotland’s Culture Minister, Linda Fabiani, said that Scottish Ministers are to consult next year on a draft Bill to amend existing heritage legislation. It went on to quote the Minister as saying: ‘Scotland has a rich heritage that plays a central role in the country’s identity, education and tourism. At the same time the country needs sustainable development and economic growth. It is the government’s priority that the bill achieves the correct balance — without complication or delays to the planning system — and further demonstrates our commitment to protecting Scotland’s heritage.’


‘We believe in a lighter-touch approach and by introducing the bill will make the existing heritage protection system more effective and efficient. Combined with the improvements we have already made to the system, including removing duplication, devolving responsibility, developing capacity and understanding within a clear, concise policy framework, the Bill will align the management of the historic environment with the country’s need for sustainable economic growth, while meeting our international commitments.’ Of course, we would all love ‘a more effective and efficient heritage protection system’; why then do these words sound more like a threat than a promise? And the reference to ‘meeting our international commitments’ reinforces Salon’s warning that we might be about to see an attempt to scale back environmental protection to the minimum required under EU law.

 

[biffvernon]

Now remind me (and this lot...) how much cash has been diverted from heritage to the Olympics???

Seems not so much will be spent on the Olympics after all:

http://newsbiscuit.com/article/london-olympic-stadium-to-be-built-by-bloke-with-van-435