APPENDIX 3
Supplementary Memorandum by The Civic
Trust (HIS 11(a))
REVIEW OF POLICIES RELATING TO THE HISTORIC
ENVIRONMENT—DETAILED COMMENTS
Question 1: Methods for identification of
the wider historic environment
1.1 Firstly, the system must be more inclusive.
The present restriction of protection to listed buildings and
conservation areas ignores many good buildings and interesting
localities not afforded such protection. Indeed, communities living
outside Conservation areas should have the opportunities, and
resources, to bring their areas up to some sort of equivalent
status.
1.2 Local communities will have the clearest
view of what constitutes their historic environment and cultural
identity. Therefore canvassing their views on a local basis will
serve as a useful basis for defining what is important about the
historic environment, both on a wider and a local basis. English
Heritage and national and local government must therefore have
a duty to consult more closely with local communities. Involvement
of communities in the production of local environmental surveys—for
example, that produced by the Wimbledon Society—will aid
this process substantially.
Question 2: Identifying and measuring the
diversity of values attached to the historic environment
2.1 This should include an increased emphasis
on identifying local perceptions of cultural identity and vulnerable
historic places. Local amenity societies with their wide-ranging
interests, are in a key position to aid this process, though other
groups with differing viewpoints also have an essential contribution
in ensuring that the full diversity of views is known. Local authorities
should be provided with the resources to initiate and co-ordinate
the process.
Question 3: Information on the condition
of the historic environment
3.1 Although there is clearly scope to increase
the information base, and it is important that existing data bases
are maintained and undated. we do not regard data collection as
one of the most pressing priorities for the review process.
Question 4: Prioritising threats to the significance
of the Historic environment
4.1 Historic Parks and Open spaces.
As is clear from the recent Select Committee
Report, there has been significant deterioration in the condition
of many public parks through inadequate maintenance. The Heritage
Lottery Fund Parks Programme has been welcome and is having a
significant impact, but a much wider programme is needed and English
Heritage should play a more active role. The Green Flag Park Awards
programme, managed by the Civic Trust, is beginning to play an
important role in awareness raising and English Heritage should
consider becoming actively involved.
4.2 Town Centres and the Urban Streetscape.
The historic urban streetscape has suffered
notable decline in many historic towns andConservation Areas—sometimes
even leading to suggestions that Conservation Areastatus of some
areas be removed—in particular through:
— Insensitive development by private
and public bodies which has both imposed inappropriate buildings
and resulted in the loss or damaging alteration of historic buildings.
— Poor standards of "design"'
in street works, highway signage. lighting, etc, all undertaken
without planning permission by departments with too little concept
of the visual and cultural damage which results. This is exacerbated
by the lack of co-ordination between the various departments of
local authorities, and also between separate agencies (such as
local authorities, public utilities, highways authorities) who
carry out their work independently of each other and with no regard
to historic aspects of the area where they work. We also receive
many complaints from our members, of local authorities with inadequate
resources, or lack of political will, to implement proper works
or take enforcement action.
— The reduced viability of some town
centres, eg through the development of out-of-town retail centres;
traffic blight, imbalance of uses such as restaurants or estate
agents, and loss of "traditional" retail uses which
exacerbate the flight of consumers to out-of-town retail centres.
— Lack of adequate heritage and design
skills—and the resources to obtain them—in planning
authorities. We believe this is a serious issue and evidence suggests
it is growing in impact.
Allowing of inadequate planning applications
in Conservation Areas.
— Low prioritisation of the historic
environment by. local authorities; too many are bad guardians
of listed buildings they own.
— We also receive some complaints by
members of poor performance and insensitivity in the planning
process by English Heritage.
— Inadequate resources devoted to enforcement,
and difficulty for the public in ascertaining what works have
and do not have authorisation.
4.3 These aspects of the historic environment
need urgent attention. Local authorities should be obliged to
produce design guidelines for their historic environment. They
should also be obliged to staff their relevant departments adequately,
or employ appropriately qualified consultants as advisors.
4.4 The urgency of the situation must be
seen in the context of the damage already done to much of the
historic environment. We are not starting with a "clean slate",
butare particularly labouring under the burden of damage inflicted
by excessive zeal for change after the 1939-45 war, by the lack
of a framework within which much of the commercial development
of the last 40 years has been carried out, and by the proscriptive
legislation which has limited sensitive control of the process
of change.
4.5 The process must therefore be one of
improving the historic environment, remedying damage, and offering
incentives for co-operation in that process. It must also recognise
that there need be no conflict between conservation and new design
(see Question 1 7), and that—as can be seen in successful
historic cities elsewhere in Europe—conservation is no bar
to economic progress.
Transport improvements
4.6 The very substantial increase in targeted
investment recently announced by the Deputy Prime Minister is
welcome, but the scale and pace of new transport development that
it implies, must pose some potential conflicts with the historic
fabric. Congested areas of towns will often be historic areas,
and the extensive new road building programme may well effect
historic landscapes.
Public bodies
4.7 Neglect by public bodies both national
and local is an important factor which needs to be much better
addressed; we comment in more detail in Question 20.
Question 5: Encouraging Interest in the Historic
Environment
5.1 Both aspects must be addressed in parallel.
It is, of course, essential that young people be taught to value—and
understand—their historic environments. The curriculum should
be extended to promoting understanding—and enjoyment—of
the richness of the heritage, and the reasons, and strategies
in place, for protecting it. Lack of interest on the part of the
young generation—through being inadequately educated in
the subject—will only deepen the problem in the longer term.
The new Citizenship element of the National Curriculum provides
a real opportunity, with its links to civic virtues, history and
community, yet we are not aware that these opportunities are being
actively exploited.
5.2 However, equal effort must be directed
to informing and influencing those in the public and private realms
who are the current decision-makers and whose actions continue
to affect the historic environment, often on a significant scale;
if this is not done, significantly less may remain for the "next
generation" by the time they assume responsibility for it.
The quote from William Morris in paper 5, Para.47, is particularly
appropriate here. Adults, too, must not be excluded from a full
understanding of, and participation in the protection of, their
heritage; indeed, if they are not seen by the younger generation
to care, the latter will see even less reason why they should.
5.3 Local communities should be given the
opportunity to participate in the management of the historic environment,
both as practical projects (such as surveys or restoration projects)
and as stakeholders in the alarming process. Local amenity groups,
historical societies, and other community groups with a detailed
knowledge of relevant aspects could be encouraged and supported
much more actively to help schools in the education process.
5.4 Though there has been a growing awareness
of the historic environment in recent years, this is not as deeply
rooted in English (as opposed to British) culture, and is spread
unevenly through society. This contrasts with many other European
countries, where a sense of place and continuity with the past
is more widely accepted, yet does not hinder positive progress,
and we consider that there is much to learn from studying approaches
to cultural knowledge abroad. Again the new Citizenship Curriculum
provides an opportunity.
Question 6: Wider
Community Participation
6.1 The answer is certainly "yes".
We were disappointed and surprised that the "Belonging"
Working Group did not refer to the Heritage Open Days programme,
which the Trust runs with English Heritage. The programme is growing
quite rapidly and clearly has further substantial potential to
increase awareness and appreciation in all age groups.
6.2 The active participation of the Local
Amenity Society movement must also be encouraged to a greater
extent. A third of a million people, in all walks of life, are
members of this movement and, as one of the largest constituencies
of its type in the country, their experience, local and wider
knowledge, and their widely varied professional skills, shall
be harnessed more effectively
6.3 Lottery and similar grants would enable
community groups to assist in the recording process in a cost-effective
way using their "voluntary" time to assist hard-pressed
local authorities. The information could be made available to
the public via local authority and museum websites. Community
groups could produce management plans to restore or recover historic
features, and at the same time contribute to the regeneration
process, through more active promotion of Building Preservation
trusts.
6.4 In relation to the formal planning process,
involvement of the local community in discussions between local
authorities and developers would help the public to know what
is going on. It would also enable them to have a positive and
constructive input into the planning process. The new LGA Developer
and Voluntary Sector Concordat provides the basis for good
practice.
6.5 The public is anxious for wider involvement
in the planning process. However, local societies too frequently
report to us consistent disregarding of UDP and other Local plan
policies by local authorities. Hence the growing calls for a third
party right of appeal (see Question 13 below).
Question 7: Expertise in maintenance and
management of the historic environment
7.1 Clearly the answer is "no"',
and high grade skills are in short supply and either low down
in local authority priorities, or unaffordable. This has been
compounded by the exclusion of relevant professionals, particularly
architects with planning training, from planning departments.
7.2 A fundamental change is needed, including
intensive training to raise the urban design skills base, and
an improved system of bringing in design- and construction-based
professionals to the planning system. The professions need to
place much greater stress on an inter-disciplinary core of common
values and standards. The Urban Design Alliance, of which the
Trust is a founder member, is addressing this issue, but urgent
action is needed by Government and its agents to assist the process.
English Heritage could commission a substantial CPD programme
on the historic environment to assist local authority staff.
7.3 Voluntary groups also have a role, though
the resource they can bring are variable; therefore, whether an
individual project can be completed with volunteers must be looked
at on an individual basis. Nevertheless, the training and using
of volunteers is an essential part of community involvement and
education. However, access to external funding must be made a
much less complex process than at present.
Question 8: Tourism Tax
8.1 We find this an odd and badly worded
question, and we are puzzled by its inclusion. We are not persuaded
that the way forward is to impose further taxation burdens on
an already pressured British tourist industry.
Question 9: Has domestic tourism reached
a plateau; does it matter; and can new sections of the community
be attracted?
9.1 Given a projected study rise in GDP
and average incomes, both in the UK and elsewhere we see no reason
why domestic tourism need reach a plateau. The nature of that
tourism market will however continue to change as the decline
of many seaside resorts shows. In our view well promoted heritage
sites should be able to attract more visitors if they so wish.
We certainly believe there is scope to attract a wider cross-section
of the population to such sites and indeed the Heritage Open Days
programme is already beginning to demonstrate this potential.
9.2 Numbers are in any event only one consideration.
What also matters is:
— the education of individuals to appreciate
the heritage;
— the accessibility of the heritage
to the widest section of the population, both in terms of transport
and affordability;
— the ability of the individual visitor
attraction (the majority being small, local and often isolated)
to function at a level which is satisfactory to the operator providing
the service. In many examples, particularly in the case of very
small local museums and attractions, these are run by small owners
or volunteers who do the work for the love of their. subject and
their wish to share it with the public, and a large budgetary
surplus is not of primary importance. The totality of these operations
is every bit as essential to domestic tourism as the major national
sites, and separate and possibly favourable help; in terms of
promotion and tax concessions, should be devised to help them
serve the essential cultural, social and educational function
they perform.
Question 10: Are historic sites threatened by
over-popularity?
10.1 A relatively few historic sites do
suffer from excess visitor presence, but the scale of the threat
overall is. in our view, exaggerated Skilful local management
of the pressured places can find ways to successfully accommodate
large numbers without fabric damage. Charges and fees are a useful
element, but the solutions are very much for local decision. We
do not favour heavy-handed national intervention or more legislation.
10.2 As well as rationing of supply, it
is equally important to encourage the development of new attractions
which can reduce some of the pressures on the key sites. These
might be on or off-site. Here the national and regional agencies
do have a significant role to play in supporting, financially
and in other ways, the erection of the additional centres.
10.3 In some cases, rationing, e.g. by timed
tickets, has been seen to work in such countries as France, Italy,
Spain, the U.S.A. and some sites in the U.K.
Question 11: In order to improve the quality
of local authority decisions, what changes are needed in the information,
resources and expertise available to them at both officer and
member level? Will Best Value help? What effect will the new local
government structures have? Are improvements needed at English
heritage, in Government Offices and in the Planning Inspectorate?
11.1 This is one of the longest questions
in the discussion document. As we have mentioned, we consider
that local authorities often lack the skill base to carry out
their role and the problem is getting worse. In Solihull, for
example, a recent staff review has resulted in the downgrading
of several planning and conservation posts and an exodus of staff.
In too many Local Authorities, conservation and heritage posts
are seen as marginal and of low political priority. Many local
authorities have Conservation Areas not backed up by any active
Conservation Area policies or resources.
11.2 We are sceptical that Best Value will
necessarily help this situation, and the Solihull example shows
the dangers. In addition, the increasing number of occasions reported
to us in which policy decisions, where new cabinet-style local
government has already been introduced, are made in secret, indicates
that this, too, is undermining public confidence in local government.
We are therefore pleased that an Open Cabinet system will now
be required.
11.3 The legislative and government policy
directives in such documents as PPG15 and 16 do not achieve a
consistent quality of decision in relation to the impact of change
on the historic environment. There is increasing pressure on already
limited and poorly resourced local authority staffs and the Planning
Inspectorate, and a root cause of this is the ever-increasing
pressure on staff to meet targets which emphasise speed over quality,
and to produce more with less. There are now inadequate numbers
of skilled staff in local authorities to undertake the high quality
of work required. Better technical advice in architectural history
and other relevant fields is urgently needed.
11.4 What is urgently needed is to raise
the standards and quality of management; a continuous demand for
more quantity for the same resources will not achieve a solution
to a growing problem. This is unlikely to be achieved until Local
Authorities are placed under a duty, rather than a discretion,
to maintain the historic environment, and to resource the work
adequately.
11.5 The consultation document suggests
that there is unlikely to be any increase in resources. Unless
this can be achieved in respect of the provision of skilled staff,
we are concerned that the best placed strategies will fail.
Our societies, in addition, frequently complain
to us about:
(i) the regular marginalisation of conservation
officers by planners;
(ii) the poor standard not only of Council
officers, but of decisions made by Councillors, often on the basis
of poor information or even from party political motives. The
Government's recent booklet "Training in Planning for Councillors"
should be upgraded from advisory guidelines to a prerequisite
for a place on a Planning Committee, and its implementation monitored.
(iii) Approval of questionable or bad design
by local authorities in historic areas, on the basis that it is
not their remit, or within their power, to influence it.
11.6 As regards community involvement, the
improvement of Local Plans through the input of skilled staff
should facilitate community-based managementofthe historic environment
(discuss paper 4.45). We agree that a better mechanism is needed
for community participation by genuine debate in the Local Plan
process (para.46), but again this is dependent on the availability
of skilled local authority staff to support the process.
Question 12: Management agreements for more complex
sites and buildings
12.1 We have no comments on this question,
as we consider it of relatively little importance, in comparison
with the other issues, but we cannot see that these would be practical.
Question 13: What legislative improvements could
be introduced quickly?
13.1 We do not believe that, with the exception
of a clear overall "duty" in respect of the historic
environment, and reversal of such damaging anomalies as the Shimizu
decision, that legislation is the priority. We have a reasonable
raft of legislation. The issue is how well, or rather, how badly,
we use it. The duty of care requirement should however be introduced
as soon as possible, but only if it can be accompanied by an enhanced
range of tax concessions and incentives to owners.
3.2 The Civic Amenities Act 1967 has worked
well and needs fine-tuning rather than abandonment. Indeed, it
was clearing from the working party and specialist group discussions
on the review that many hold the view, based on working experience,
that effective implementation of the controls already available
may achieve the desired end. Aspects such as the need for adequate
skilled staff, covered elsewhere in this paper, are an integral
part of the process—but if resources do not permit this,
a system of Conservation Area Advisory Committees and Panels exists
which would be both able and willing to expand its role to embrace
many of these functions.
13.3 In respect of Third Party Rights, we
receive continual requests from members to urge that local people
be given a positive right to input into the planning process,both
at the negotiation stage and to a third party right of appeal.
We believe that the Human Rights Act 1998. shortly to come into
force, may have a significant role to play in this, and thereby
in the way in which the individual can affect the planning process.
if there is no other recourse for aggrieved individuals or groups,
this could lead to a significant extra burden on the planning
and legislative svstem. Careful consideration is needed of ways
in which the community can be involved in the planning process
in a more constructive and proactive way.
13.4 We also receive complaints that planning
authorities do not take adequate account of local views in making
decisions; in not a few cases, this is attributed to Councillors'
fear of being surcharged or charged "costs" on appeal.
This is a particularly disturbing and unsatisfactory aspect of
the current system. A more effective system of planning aid for
public groups would help to address this, and we also hope that
the new Concordat mentioned earlier will help.
13.5 The remit of the Planning Inspectorate
should be changed from being arbiters of expensively-argued legal
cases to promoters of the best standards in planning. A move from
public inquiries to more determinations by written representations
may assist in this. It would be well worth exploring a more independent
role for the Inspectorate, perhaps as part of an Environmental
Court, so that they are seen to be free of Ministerial pressure.
13.6 We also believe the situation would
be greatly simplified for all parties, without any damage to the
historic environment, if the necessity for obtaining Planning
Permission, Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area consent
were simplified into a single process.
Question 14: Can we develop a system based
on characterisation and implemented through the planning system?
14.1 We are cautious about this suggestion,
especially about its likely resource implications, given the inadequate
level of resources available to deal with existing priorities.
14.2 The current system does not take into
account the need to designate good buildings, special localities
and unique street patterns which do not fit in with Conservation
Area criteria. The system needs to be inclusive rather than exclusive.
14.3 Every building needs a setting, and
it is the character of a place which is so important today, especially
when traditional industries and individual shops have disappeared.
In theory, therefore, we can see a case for a wider characterisation
approach.
14.4 In practical terms, however, such a
system would take a long time to implement and a dangerous vacuum
could develop in the interim, if the value of the current designation
system was undermined and seen as "second best".
14.5 We repeat that our involvement- with
discussions of these issues shows clearly a widely-held view that
the present system could work effectively, if properly implemented
and resourced. Until a satisfactory alternative system is in place,
that can be quickly introduced, it would be highly undesirable
to replace or weaken in any way the present designation system.
Question 15: Resources and the market
15.1 The market is not, on its own, capable—or
motivated—to provide resources for all future requirements
of the historic environment, unless legally obliged to do so within
the context of nationally recognised guidelines. Indeed. this
is not the function of the market, and could in many ways be argued
to be inimical to it. There are many desirable works which cannot
be funded by the market. and alternative sources of funding are
essential.
15.2 However, more tax concessions aimed
at assisting owners and developers to conserve or enhance that
part of the historic environment over which it does exercise control
should be available, and would, we believe, be the most effective
strategy for the long term. Lord Rogers' Urban Task Force made
several useful recommendations here which we believe should be
pursued. The immediate harmonisation of VAT on new build and on
repair and maintenance is the clearest example of such a measure,
and we are dismayed at the political motives. The Government's
recent booklet "Training in Planning for Councillors"
should be upgraded from advisory guidelines to a prerequisite
for a place on a Planning Committee, and its implementation monitored.(in)
Approval of questionable or bad design by local authorities in
historic areas, on the basis that it is not their remit, or within
their power, to influence it.
11.6 As regards community involvement, the
improvement of Local Plans through the input of skilled staff
should facilitate community-based management of the historic environment
(discuss paper 4.45).
We agree that a better mechanism is needed for community
participation by genuine debate in the Local Plan process (para.46),
but again this is dependent on the availability of skilled local
authority staff to support the process.
Question 16: Neighbourhood regeneration
16.1 This question is poorly drafted. The
achievement of neighbourhood regeneration is a much broader issue.
The question should be: "how can the historic environment
best contribute to neighbourhood regeneration?"
16.2 The necessary skills to achieve this
are historic knowledge, a sensitivity to place, and the ability
to be flexible in adapting historic structures to relate to fresh
uses and needs, and yet in a manner which respects those structures'
character and integrity. Local groups can help this process, and
indeed their involvement is central to success, but leadership
and commitment from local authorities is necessary, as well, if
possible, as the ability to provide "seed corn" funding
for projects—for example, through compulsory purchase of
derelict sites and buildings.
16.3 Many localities have well-constructed
local development plans, which address -heritage needs within
the overall local context. However, we receive too many expressions
of concern that planning authorities are being undermined by decisions
on appeal which disregard local plans, and sometimes the heritage
dimension.
Question 17: Reconciliation of conservation
and new design. Should the planning system be more responsive
to architectural quality?
17.1 The Civic Trust Awards, flourishing
after 40 years, demonstrate through many award-winning examples
that conservation and new design can be positively reconciled.
These projects repeatedly show that design success is achieved
where there is a combination of a sensitive client, a skilled
and multi-disciplinary group of practitioners, and a sympathetic
local authority.
17.2 The problem is that this that this
good practice is not sufficiently widespread. Local authorities
often lack the requisite skills and the built environment professions
do not relate sufficiently closely, or encourage common cross-professional
values. The Urban Design Alliance, of which the Civic Trust is
a founder member, is beginning to address this issue, but it also
needs active support and encouragement by Government. New training
programmes should be introduced, using CPD techniques for local
authority councillors, staff and other professionals. English
Heritage should themselves embark on a staff training programme,
to improve understanding of the creative blending of "old"
and "new." CABE should be involved and the Regional
Development Agencies. We believe such a programme could be introduced
relatively quickly and could be very cost-effective.
Question 18: Recognition and protection of national.
regional and local distinctiveness
18.1 This must surely be addressed through
the educational system (see Question 5 above). However, the recognition
of the existence, and the social, cultural and tourism.
| 
