Formal Designations
57. On occasion CABE appears to challenge formal
designations for historic buildings and conservation areas without
setting out its reasons. Witnesses highlighted examples where
they suggested that CABE had ignored the impact of a new building
in a conservation area and in another supported the demolition
of a Grade I listed building. One witness, Evelyn Cook, commented:
CABE's Design Review Panel appears to be working
outside of its remit and apparent expertise where the historic
environment is concerned and not only commenting on the quality
of a proposed development, but actively engaging in making judgements
on the quality of the historic architecture it is intended to
replace. This is illustrated by a discussion of issues surrounding
CABE's involvement in the process which led to the decision to
demolish Span 4 at Paddington Railway Station, an important part
of a Grade I Listed building…To allow demolition of a major
and far from unimportant (in architectural and historic terms)
part of a Grade I listed building and replace it with work of
unproven merit, when it could and should be retained into any
new scheme, is a disturbing national precedent. It calls into
question the protection supposedly afforded to Grade I listed
buildings. The fact that CABE went beyond its remit in this case
to so very publicly dismiss the importance of Span 4 and promote
a replacement building, without there being any official membership
representing conservation bodies on CABE to provide an expert
opinion, is a cause for great concern.[49]
58. Another witness suggested that CABE had appropriate
policies but it did not always comply with them. The Bradford
on Avon Preservation Trust commented:
We submit that the "secret agenda" followed
by the Design Review Panel appears to be to promote incongruous
designs in modern materials, regardless of the local character
of the historic areas in which they are set. For CABE to act as
guardian of the quality of the built environment, it needs to
apply the criteria which it writes about in its design guides.[50]
Other witnesses noted that CABE had developed with
English Heritage a policy on tall buildings but it was not always
applied when considering schemes. The Kensington Society pointed
once again to the scheme at South Kensington: "All in all,
it is hard to see how, if CABE had abided by its own guidance
as set out in its own documents such as Building in Context, Design
Review and the guidance on Tall Buildings it could have come to
the views it did on South Kensington."[51]
59. During our inquiry, CABE published a statement
on its approach to the historic environment. Its new Chief Executive,
Richard Simmons, accepted that it needed to be more open about
its policies. He told us:
I think it is about time CABE started saying a bit
more about its policies towards things, partly, clearly, because
we have received a certain amount of criticism on some of those
issues in the media, stimulated by some of the people who appeared
before this Committee amongst others. We wanted to be clear about
our position, which is that we do consider the historic environment
as part of our consideration of schemes. We do think it is an
important part of the context for schemes. We do think sometimes
people will want to design something new which may change the
historic environment.[52]
60. We welcome CABE's recent initiative to set
out its policies on historic buildings. These policies should
be developed and form the basis for all its decisions. It should
demonstrate that it is adhering to them and, on the occasions
when its views contradict them, offer a full explanation. CABE
should work within the statutory designations set down by other
public agencies. Its role is not to assess the value of the historic
environment but to ensure that new schemes enhance it.
Expertise in the Historic Environment
61. Some submissions suggested that there was a lack
of staff, commissioners and members of the Design Review Panels
with experience of managing the historic environment. SAVE Britain's
Heritage commented:
We are deeply concerned that there is insufficient
expertise available to CABE on the historic environment or, if
that experience does exist, it is not sufficiently represented
or taken heed of. CABE's record in terms of Design Review does
not show it to be sympathetic to the historic environment.[53]
The Chelsea Society said that
CABE's Design Review Panel embraces modernist and
neo-classical architects but it is still too narrowly based. Even
though English Heritage is represented at review meetings, the
panel is lacking in conservation expertise and in understanding
of the role of development control. Additional expertise is needed
in architectural history and town planning and in the design and
management of the public realm.[54]
62. When we asked CABE about expertise on the historic
environment on the Design Review Panel, its acting Chairman and
Chief Executive said that the members at each meeting were arranged
about a year ahead.[55]
It was not clear that the panel would include members with the
relevant heritage expertise when buildings affecting the historic
environment were considered. Since our inquiry, two new members
of the Design Review Panel have been appointed who have particular
expertise in the historic environment and conservation. CABE
should ensure that members with expertise in the historic environment
and conservation are present at all meetings of the Design Review
Panel.
43 Ev 36 Back
44
http://www.cabe.org.uk/review/reports/reports.asp?id=183 Back
45
Ev 27 Back
46
Ev 45 Back
47
Appeal Ref APP/K5600/A/03/1135903, The Power House, Alpha Place
, London SW3 5SZ, Appeal Decision by Terry G Phillimore Back
48
Ev 43, The Role and Effectiveness of CABE, HC 1117-I, Session
2003-2004 Back
49
Ev 52 Back
50
Ev 60 Back
51
Ev 50 Back
52
Q207 Back
53
Ev 37 Back
54
Ev 28 Back
55
Q200 Back
