Memorandum by M R Jackson (HIS 02)
SUMMARY
Firstly, it is submitted that "historic
building" should be broadened to "historic artefact"
when considering regeneration impact. This would embrace both
other constructions (eg ancient roads), and the prior use of an
otherwise run-of-the-mill building. Education of town planners
and their advisors would be needed to accommodate this change.
Secondly, it is submitted that the national-heritage
advisory bodies may not be appropriately structured or resourced
to enable them to be sensitive to local heritage considerations.
Thirdly, a proposal is made for a process to
allow community appeal on grounds of heritage impact against an
allowed development application.
Material related to Public Open Space, as prepared
for the earlier intended inquiry, is included as an Appendix.
1. What is an historic building?
1.1 Is a building historic because of its
structure, its past use or both? In the context of urban regeneration,
one assumes that it is primarily the relative historic uniqueness
of the structure on which the committee will focus; but would
that be the case with Anne Hathaway's cottage?
1.2 One might also question the definition
of building. The quick answer might be a structure for occupation
that goes up from the ground. But this would exclude a bridge,
a wartime bunker or even the cobbled road by which Bonnie Prince
Charlie entered my hometown.
1.3 If any legislation is to flow from this
inquiry, then historic building must be carefully defined. Might
"artefact" be a better word than "building"?
2. What contribution do historic buildings
(artefacts) make to urban regeneration?
2.1 One assumes that "urban regeneration"
infers work done on the urban infrastructure to make it more appropriate
to the needs of the present and future communities. I would contend
that a "sense of belonging", whatever that means, is
such a community need.
2.2 My town has a score of buildings with
plaques to indicate occupancy by a famous person—be it Eric
Morecambe or Laurence Binyon ("Age shall not weary them,
nor the years condemn"). Many of the actual buildings
are run of the mill; but their association with the famed does,
I submit, make my town a better place to live.
2.3 Thus, use as well as configuration,
is relevant in assessing the contribution that a historic artefact
makes to urban regeneration.
3. How appropriate is the role of, and how
effective are the public agencies responsible for the built and
historic environment in supporting urban regeneration?
3.1 Recently, a large apartment development
took place, destroying the majority of the narrow cobbled road
over which Prince Charles (the Bonnie) made his entry to Lancaster.
Whilst we have concocted a tourism event to mark his arrival,
planners showed no concern that the historic route was to be obliterated.
In my opinion the city is the loser for this.
3.2 There is a need for education of developers
and planners on the breadth of the parameters that define the
historic artefacts which should be considered in ensuring that
physical regeneration is not at the loss of community belonging.
4. Do those organisations involved in carrying
out regeneration projects give sufficient regard to the history
of artefacts?
4.1 Again, I use an example. A lot of the
stone sets in the streets of Lancaster have been re-laid in the
last 15 years, funded from numerous sources. The gaps between
the original sets were filled with crushed local limestone, and
this served well for centuries. This contrasts with the wooden
sets in some cities where tar/bitumen was used, helping to preserve
the wood. The re-laid stone sets have been pointed with tar, on
the advice of English Heritage. This might have occurred centuries
ago in cities where stone was expensive and tar/bitumen was readily
available. But should we be standardised in this way?
4.2 I would ask the committee to consider
whether the national advisory bodies are structured in a way that
enables them to adequately consider the vernacular context applicable
to regeneration involving historic artefacts.
5. Does the planning system and the listing
of historic buildings aid or hinder urban regeneration?
5.1 The development control process is becoming
increasingly aware of the costs that may be awarded if a refusal
is subsequently allowed on appeal. Thus chief planning officers
are always happier if they have some prior designation to support
their decision to refuse. A listing of historic artefacts subject
to particular care would always be welcome by a planner. But,
if use as well as appearance were a relevant consideration, the
number of artefacts to be listed would be greatly increased. Furthermore,
such a listing might not be relevant when some forms of development
are taking place.
5.2 The importance of retaining an historic
building is a subjective judgement that cannot be governed by
strict rules, especially if determined decades before. An analogy
would be deciding whether a picture is worth £1 million of
public money to keep in the country.
5.3 As a right, and for economic reasons,
the local community must take the majority decisions regarding
heritage artefacts. Presently, whilst a developer can appeal a
refusal, the community cannot appeal an acceptance. In theory,
prior referral to English Heritage should ensure that the historic
issues are addressed. But have they the resources to carry out
the necessary investigation? Their comments can be very guarded,
and maybe not a great contribution to those making the decision.
5.4 An alternative might be to allow post
approval appeals on aesthetic grounds, supported by, say, a dozen
persons within 14 days. A national body, like English Heritage,
could examine these. This, I submit, would result in less schemes
being nationally examined than at present, but more thoroughly.
6. Do all government departments take adequate
account of the historic environment?
6.1 We get very few government departments
building in my district. Those that have been built have been
designed in a way that is sympathetic to the vernacular context.
7. What legislative changes might better
enable the impact on historic artefacts to be better considered
during urban regeneration?
7.1 An historic artefact should be defined,
rather than an historic building. This definition should consider
historic use as well as structure.
7.2 The acts enabling public advisory bodies
such as English Heritage should try to encourage local sensitivity,
rather than mechanistic, office-bound standardisation.
7.3 In the development control process,
the prior consultation by officers with bodies such as English
Heritage should be replaced by (or supplemented with) a process
to allow an appeal against a planning approval on the grounds
of damage to historic artefacts.
APPENDIX
THE HERITAGE OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
1. What is an Urban Public Space?
Is urban public space:
(a) Simply the highway and such parks and
pleasure grounds that local authorities through bylaw dedicate
to public use?
(b) Might we add any land on which the public
walk without any hindrance by the owner?
(c) Might we add space that provides welcome
breaks in the façade of the highway, but over which access
on foot is prohibited (Thus, might front gardens be seen as public
space)?
It is often (b) and (c) that are lost in regeneration
projects.
Brownfield sites
A lot of Brownfield sites contain space of the
1(b) and 1(c) type. Much is lost when these sites are developed
for inner-city housing.
Local Authority finances
Slum clearance has placed a lot of land in the
hands of Local Authorities over the last few decades. Much is
used as car parking space. Whilst Local Plans posture on providing
the public with green areas for informal leisure, cash is god.
If a local authority can sell off a piece of land for housing
and knock back its overdraft, the temptation to make this a "more
significant factor" than the Local Plan is extremely great.
What can be done to stop the erosion of Public
Space?
This is the same question as, what can be done
to stop any bad planning decisions, especially those that are
major departures from structure and local plans. I know that in
the North West, GONW are extremely reluctant to become involved
in such departures. If the government will not use regional offices
and The Planning Inspectorate in a pro-active way to limit bad
decisions, nothing will change.
There are plenty of concerned people in every
community who are worried about losing public space. At present
central government gives them no support.
| 
