Memorandum submitted by the Local Government
Association (LGA)
ABOUT US
The Local Government Association (LGA) promotes
the interests of English and Welsh local authorities—a total
of just under 500 authorities. These authorities represent over
50 million people and spend around £74 billion a year on
local services.
FOCUS OF
OUR SUBMISSION
This submission focuses on the three areas the
Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee are seeking views on:
(i) The overall aims and scope of the draft
Bill;
(ii) The estimates of costs and benefits
set out in the Impact Assessment published alongside the draft
Bill; and
(iii) The staffing and skill levels needed
for effective implementation of the provisions in the draft Bill
1. The overall aims and scope of the draft
Bill
Building on the LGA response in June 2007 to
the Heritage Protection White Paper, the LGA supports the key
proposals in the Draft Bill which we feel represents a step change
in heritage protection. The LGA believe the Bill will create a
more efficient and open system, giving local councils and English
Heritage better tools to protect the environment.
The LGA feels that links to planning in the
current draft Bill are; weak and need strengthening as the Bill
moves forward. It is vital that the relevant Government Departments
(DCMS and CLG) work together to ensure that heritage is at the
heart of the planning system—a key aim of the heritage protection
reforms. There will need to be revisions to planning policy and
guidance, in particular PPG 15 and PPG 16. A detailed look at
these will be required and it would be helpful if the government
could be more specific about the timing of this. It is difficult
to understand the whole picture in relation to the reforms if
documents relating to the legislation are revised and published
in an ad hoc way.
The LGA believes it is important that English
Heritage engages and connects with local authorities on Heritage
Protection Reform and its implications—particularly as local
authorities are a crucial delivery agent. The LGA is working closely
with English Heritage on developing a joint conference to take
place in early 2009 aimed at officers and members. The aim of
the event is to outline the changes impacting on local authorities
as a result of the Bill; share best practice on the how the historic
environment can meet wider objectives such as climate change and
economic prosperity; and update local authorities on capacity
building, training and support from English Heritage to help implement
key proposals in the Bill. This will be a key opportunity for
English Heritage to engage with local authorities.
The LGA, working with advisers, welcome the
opportunity to help shape the future of heritage protection by
close engagement and working with English Heritage and DCMS on
the detail of proposals in the Draft Bill.
2. The estimates of costs and benefits set
out in the impact Assessment published alongside the draft Bill
The LGA would welcome assurances that English
Heritage is equipped to deal with the resource implications of
the new responsibilities and procedures (impacting on both English
Heritage and local authorities) set out in the Draft Bill, particularly
in the short term.
A figure of f7.2 million has been allocated
in the CSR for heritage protection reform over three years to
fund all activities. The bulk of this funding is in 2010-11 (the
year the Act is due to commence). English Heritage had previously
made it clear to the CMS Select Committee that there would be
greater "up-front" costs before the long-term savings
would be seen.
The LGA is concerned about the resourcing specifically
in relation to local authority conservation which has been highlighted
as an issue through our network of advisers. A number of local
authorities face severe resource constraints (mainly due to the
non-statutory nature of the service and the need to prioritise
resource locally).
The statutory duty for some local authorities
(top-tier) to maintain Historic Environment Records (HERs) and
make them fully accessible is a new burden. Therefore English
Heritage has advised the cost of getting all records to an adequate
level and then year on year maintenance will be covered by English
Heritage and DCMS. The statutory duty is broadly welcomed by local
authorities who feel it will help make the case for investment
in heritage services. More resources are likely to be required
to make HERs statutory than are identified in the Impact Assessment,
but such additional resources are unlikely to be substantial.
Following discussions between Sir Simon Milton,
Chairman of the LGA and Simon Thurley, Chief Executive of English
Heritage, we have agreed the scope of detailed work on costings
which will involve English Heritage, DCMS, CLG and LGA advisers.
The scoping document will be provided to the Select Committee
for information. A working group has been established to deliver
this involving the key players. it is hoped this work, which we
are proposing to deliver to DCMS by the end of July, will also
help inform the CMS Committee process.
3. The staffing and skills levels needed
for effective implementation of the provisions in the draft Bill
The recruitment and retention of Conservation
Officers is a persistent problem, including the skewed age profile
of the profession which will see a large number retire in the
next five years. This could impact on effective implementation
of the provisions in the draft Bill if not carefully considered
and measures put in place to address—measures that go beyond
training existing Conservation Officers.
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS OF HERITAGE PROTECTION
REFORM SCOPING PAPER ON FURTHER WORK
INTRODUCTION
The LGA has expressed concerns about the resourcing
of the heritage protection reforms and has welcomed assurances
that English Heritage is equipped to deal with the resource implications
of the new responsibilities and procedures (impacting on both
English Heritage and local authorities) set out in the Draft Bill,
particularly in the short term.
Sir Simon Milton, Chairman of the LGA, recently
met with Simon Thurley, Chief Executive of English Heritage. He
expressed the LGA's concerns about resourcing. A key outcome of
this meeting was the need to undertake a rapid review of the cost
implications for local authorities and English Heritage—involving
English Heritage, DCMS, CLG and LGA advisers.
RATIONALE
It is in the best interests of central government,
English Heritage and local government to test the costs highlighted
in the Impact Assessment, published alongside the draft Bill.
If the costs are found to be inadequate, it is important this
is identified early in the draft Bill process and will ensure
there is the opportunity to feed into discussions on the next
spending review. It is vital that we do not end up in a position
similar to where we find ourselves in relation to the Licensing
Act 2003—where the costs of implementing were hugely underestimated
by central government and not adequately funded for—resulting
in a shortfall to councils at a time when budget pressures are
high and in the context of a tight local government settlement.
This review will also be a useful contribution
to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. They have recently
called for evidence on the estimates of costs and benefits set
out in the Impact Assessment and although this work won't be finalised
in time for the 16 June submission deadline, it will send a positive
signal and reassure the Committee that all players are taking
the issue of resourcing seriously and can feed into the ongoing
parliamentary scrutiny process.
KEY COMPONENTS/SCOPE
This piece of work should be about:
— challenging and testing the
existing Impact Assessment and identifying what is missing and
how it can be refined (note a new IA will be published when the
draft Bill becomes a full Bill);
— the costs to English Heritage
and local authorities in the run-up to implementation and any
recurring costs (to help feed into the next CSR);
— examining the estimated savings
and efficiencies brought about by a reformed system; and
— a discussion between relevant
specialists (see delivery section page 3).
The work should focus on the costs in the following
key areas:
1. Heritage Partnership Agreements
An evaluation was published by DCMS in 2007
which should be revisited. Cornwall is cited in the IA as an example
of a successful HPA, but not all HPAs have been successful and
further work is needed on the monetary aspects of a number of
the pilots.
2. Conservation services
There is concern, particularly from IHBC, about
the resourcing specifically in relation to local authority conservation.
This issue should be investigated and further data and evidence
needs to be collected and analysed by the group in order to estimate
more accurately new burdens and other implementation issues. Areas
which will be looked at specifically are local authority resources
for historic environment services, and the recruitment, retention
and age profile of Conservation Officers
3. Historic Environment Records
The statutory duty for some local authorities
(top-tier) to maintain Historic Environment Records (HERs) and
make them fully accessible is a new burden. DCMS is committed
to meeting the cost of any ongoing new burdens placed on local
authorities by the Bill in relation to HERs, and English Heritage
will provide funding for any associated one-off transitional costs.
The statutory duty is broadly welcomed by local authorities who
feel it will help make the case for investment in heritage services.
The current figures given in the IA will be re-evaluated as part
of the work of this group.
4. Devolving consent regimes
A single "Historic Asset Consent"
will replace separate Listed Building and Scheduled Monument Consent.
Conservation Area Consent will be merged with Planning Permission.
Local authorities will be given the powers to
grant all new Historic Asset Consents—abolishing the role
of central government in granting Scheduled Monument Consent (around
2% of all applications).
This piece of work should test the current IA's
costings in this area.
5. Devolving the Management of Scheduled
Monuments
Scheduled monuments are currently managed by
English Heritage. The role is however not mentioned in the bill
or other documentation issued to date, nor in the Regulatory Impact
Assessment. Will this role also be devolved to local authorities
and if so, what will be the financial implications?
The group will identify further areas where
work on costs and savings is needed. An area which has already
been identified is local lists.
DELIVERY
Mechanism
A Steering Group has been established as follows:
Paul Raynes, LGA;
Bob Kindred, IHBC;
Stewart Bryant, ALGAO;
Representative tbc, POS;
Sarah Buckingham, EH;
Owain Lloyd-James, EH;
Dave Bachelor, EH;
Andrew Lewis, DCMS;
John Tallantyre, DCMS; and
Phil Weatherby, CLG.
A sub group involving LGA, POS, IHBC, ALGAO,
DCMS, EH and CLG is to be established to deliver the work. This
will meet regularly over the next month and half. Steering Group
members are asked to notify the LGA of their representatives by
midday Friday 13 June.
The sub group will report to the full Steering
Group by mid July on how this work is progressing.
Timescales
It is proposed that the work is finalised for
submission to DCMS by the end of the July.
June 2008
| 
