Examination of Witnesses (Questions 297
- 299)
TUESDAY 25 APRIL 2006
ENGLISH HERITAGE
Q297 Chairman: Good morning. This
is the final session in which we will be taking evidence on the
protection of heritage. We have before us this morning both English
Heritage and the Ministers with responsibility in the Government.
Can I begin by welcoming Sir Neil Cossons and Dr Simon Thurley
from English Heritage and perhaps start off by asking you about
the review of heritage protection and the measures that we are
anticipating in the White Paper. You have said in your evidence
that you believe that the reform of the heritage protection system
is essential and is eagerly awaited by partners. I think the evidence
we have received suggests that there is mild enthusiasm, but perhaps
it is not regarded quite as essential as you suggest. Can you
tell us what evidence there is that the present system is failing
and where is the pressure for change coming from?
Sir Neil Cossons: Chairman, good
morning. I am Neil Cossons, Chairman of English Heritage, and
we are delighted to be here. The Heritage Protection Review is
something on which, as you know, we have been working for quite
a long while and at its heart is our belief that the present arrangements
are over-complex and difficult to understand by many people in
the sector, so at its heart we see the Heritage Protection Review
as simplifying and streamlining as a means towards aiding understanding
and in particular, I think, getting a wider appreciation of the
value of protective legislation on the part of people as a whole.
Dr Thurley: If I could perhaps
add to that, we believe that conservation has been regarded all
too often as something that has been obstructive and as being
something that has prevented people from doing things and held
people back. Our view is also that that is a misplaced view, so
what our core focus is as an organisation is to bring about what
we describe as `constructive conservation' and that is a much
more positive attitude to the whole series of issues around protecting
the historic environment. We believe that there are three things
which are absolutely fundamental if we are going to achieve a
much more constructive way of dealing with conservation. The first
one of those is the Heritage Protection Review, and I will come
on to that in a second. The second is a fundamental look at the
way the philosophy of conservation is operated in England, and
it is all too often still seen as a recipe for stopping things
from happening, whereas we believe that what the process of conservation
actually is is the management of change, so we believe that there
has to be a philosophical change and we are leading the review
and the consultation at the moment which will lead to a very important
document which will be about how we believe the philosophy of
conservation ought to develop over the next few years. The third
element of constructive conservation is training and support for
local authorities. What we see is the Heritage Protection Review
within this wider package of changing philosophy, of support and
training and support for local authorities, that it cannot be
disengaged from those and we do not believe that we can get this
much more positive approach unless we have all three of those
things working together.
Q298 Chairman: Certainly I think
we have heard a lot of evidence about the need for a change in
attitude, as you have described. The other thing we have heard
a lot about is a need for a change in the level of resourcing
which we will come on to, but neither of those things is necessarily
going to be dealt with by structural change in a White Paper.
Where do you think it is wrong at the moment and why do we need
to be doing this?
Dr Thurley: I think that Sir Neil
is right, that it is too complicated. There are two principal
types of designation, scheduling and Listing, and one of the main
problems with scheduling is that it is a national designation
and we are not alone in this country in having this problem. Quite
often across Europe archaeology is then dealt with by central
government rather than by local government and what that does
is it divorces the decision-making about important archaeological
issues from local people and from the local authorities and that
somehow gives them the feeling that it is somebody else's problem.
We certainly believe that a very, very important part of the Heritage
Protection Review is making sure that the important decisions
about people's localities should be made in the localities and
it should not be for national government and a secretary of state
to make those decisions on their behalf. Therefore, what that
is all about is actually about making a system that people can
own much more and also a system that is much more open and less
secretive because, as I am sure you are aware and you will have
heard evidence on this, the current system of Listing means that
an English Heritage inspector can come and view your building
without you knowing, make a recommendation to the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of State can then List your building without
you knowing and the first thing you know about it is a letter
through your letterbox informing you of that. A system that does
not allow people to participate, does not allow people to be involved
in the decisions about their own assets is going to be a system
that does have less respect and has less power and efficacy, so
we believe this is really about giving people a much greater opportunity
to be engaged both in the consent side and in the designation
side too.
Q299 Chairman: Before I move on,
could I ask you if you are happy that one of the tiers, the Grade
II* tier, is going to disappear?
Dr Thurley: One of the proposals
is that in order to simplify the list, instead of having Grade
I, II* and Grade II, one will just have Grade I and Grade II,
and probably most of the scheduled ancient monuments, the Grade
Is and the II*s, will become Grade I and the Grade IIs will remain
as they are. There is a benefit to this because those three classes
are the three classes that are referred up nationally for consultation,
so it will be very, very clear that if you had a Grade I category
site or monument, you would, therefore, be liable to have your
application referred to a national level. We just think again
that it makes things simpler. It is not a downgrading in any sense
and, if anything, it is an upgrading for the IIs.
Sir Neil Cossons: By the same
token, on my earlier point about simplification, the idea of having
Grade II* is arcane from the point of view of the wider public
understanding of what Listing means, so anything that simplifies
and enhances the quality of categorisation is, we believe, constructive
and, as Simon says, putting II* into category I simplifies it
from the operational point of view and certainly simplifies it
from the point of view of a wider public understanding of what
Listing is and what it means.
|
