Memorandum submitted by Heritage Link
1. SUMMARY
Heritage Link brings together 86 voluntary organisations
concerned with heritage in England representing interests from
specialist advisers, practitioners and managers, volunteers and
owners, to national funding bodies and local building preservation
trusts. Much of the historic environment is cared for—supported,
managed or owned—by these organisations and thus they and
their own members—from the eight national amenity societies
with statutory functions to the hundreds of local civic societies—have
firsthand and longstanding experience of the heritage protection
system as well as advisory and educational roles.
For the detail, we are encouraging our specialist
members to comment to your Committee and to DCMS. Their casework
experience make them an outstanding independent resource and we
hope you will find their responses valuable.
We welcome the Draft Heritage Bill as a milestone
in creating a more integrated, robust, streamlined and more transparent
heritage protection system. This submission:
— sets out Heritage Link's positive
support for the objectives of the Draft Bill;
— identifies a number of points where
clarification or improvements could be made, particularly over
costings and transitional arrangements;
— expresses concern that National Amenity
Societies must meet the increased costs of their expanded role;
— recommends areas where the level
of public involvement in the heritage protection system could
be improved; and
— reflects widespread lack of confidence
in Local Authority capacity to deliver historic environment services
of the quality envisaged in the Draft Bill.
2.OVERALL AIMS
AND SCOPE
OF THE
DRAFT BILL
This Draft Bill, the first step in creating
a heritage protection system fit for the 21st century, recognises
the positive role the historic environment plays in society. As
well as drawing together disparate legislation, we particularly
welcome new elements—Heritage Protection Agreements, provisional
registration, the requirement for local authorities to maintain
or have access to Historic Environment Records and bringing protection
in Conservation Areas back to pre-Shimizu levels.
2.1Commitment to protection levels
Government has assured us throughout the process
that the new regime will not lessen the level of heritage protection.
The Bill as drafted extends and enhances protection in a number
of areas and we appreciate DCMS and English Heritage effort in
achieving this. We expect that this level of protection will not
be diminished in the final Heritage Protection Bill or the secondary
legislation:
— The Committee might seek the same
assurance from the present Culture Minister.
2.2. Core principles
While we welcome the level of protection set
out in the Draft Bill, there are areas where the Bill, or the
spirit of the Bill does not match up to the three core principles
in the Heritage White Paper. These were:
— developing a unified approach to
the historic environment;
— maximising opportunities for inclusion
and involvement; and
— supporting sustainable communities
by putting the historic environment at the heart of an effective
planning system.
2.2.1 Developing a unified approach to the historic
environment
The combined Register, the revised and new categories
of Heritage Assets and the new Historic Asset Consent will give
a more co-ordinated framework. There are also measures to achieve
more joined up management in the Local Authorities. However this
unified approach is still not reflected in central government.
In our response to the Heritage White Paper
we hoped that cross Government support would be made more evident
in the Bill itself. But the Draft Bill makes no mention of CLG,
the Department responsible for planning, building and the environment,
local government and for neighbourhoods and communities.
We still consider that combined sponsorship
of the Bill would give a far stronger message of cross government
commitment.
— We recommend that the Committee looks
into the relationship between DCMS and CLG over the Bill.
2.2.2 Maximising opportunities for inclusion
and involvement
This is the area which concerns Heritage Link
most but could be enhanced before the Bill is formally introduced.
Measures like the online Register and the new duty to maintain
or have access to Historic Environment Records have enormous potential
for public engagement.
However the Draft Bill does not deliver expectations
of the Heritage White Paper in developing the scope for public
consultation. The National Amenity Societies will be consulted
on an extended range of registration issues which could be burdensome
if not properly resourced and we comment on this under the Impact
Assessment.
With the White Paper's intention to maximise
opportunities for inclusion and involvement we are surprised that
the consultation with the wider voluntary heritage sector is so
limited. The expertise and commitment of the voluntary sector
makes it a key player in the heritage protection system.
As currently drafted, Clause 9e includes the
National Amenity Societies in the list of those to be consulted
and "any other person the heritage authority considers appropriate
in view of that person's special knowledge or interest [...]".
But it excludes organisations such as local
civic and amenity societies, historical and archaeological groups.
These have specialist local knowledge and are willing to contribute
many man-hours often on a voluntary basis. Community groups to
whom the assets may be important as part of the local environment
should also have a role. One of the intended non-monetisable benefits
of the new system is "greater inclusivity through involving
more groups in the decision making process and also improving
the quality of decision making through consideration of a range
of expert opinion" (para 26 Impact Assessment), yet this
in not borne out in the Draft Bill at it stands.
— Heritage Link recommends that all
clauses in the final Bill (including sections on Conservation
Areas) relating to consultation and representation, should be
amended to:
"any other person or organisation the
heritage authority considers appropriate in view of that person
or organisation's special knowledge or interest in [...]".
2.2.3 Supporting sustainable communities by putting
the historic environment at the heart of an effective planning
system
The Impact Assessment says the Bill "will
support sustainable communities by putting the historic environment
at the heart of an effective planning system operating at local
level".
At central government level this principle is
less evident. The Explanatory Notes scarcely refer to its place
in the wider context of the Planning Bill or the future of PPGs
15 and 16. The range of legislation repealed through this Draft
Heritage Protection Bill indicates how the historic environment
permeates a huge range of public life. Until we know what form
the new Planning Guidance will take, we are not convinced that
the historic environment is at the heart of an effective planning
system.
We recommend that the historic environment,
cutting across so many Departments, should have its own Planning
Policy Statement which would put the historic environment at the
heart of an effective planning system at the highest level.
— Heritage Link advises the Committee
to seek clarification on the progress CLG and DCMS have made in
the developing a Historic Environment National Policy Statement.
2.3 Scope
The Draft Bill sets out primary legislation
necessary to bring together separate sources of information, legislative
procedures and working practice but is a small part of the whole
package of secondary legislation, planning policy and guidance—some
96 different pieces in all, we understand.
Even with the Explanatory Notes and the Commentary
published by English Heritage, we cannot judge how well the new
heritage protection regime will operate on the basis of the Draft
Bill alone. The guidance and consultations issued so far are encouraging
but the Implementation programme and Transitional arrangements
are also critical. We and our members would be better able to
take up opportunities for consultation, "maximising opportunities
for inclusion and involvement" if we could plan further ahead.
— It would be helpful to have an indication
of what and when related material will be published.
2.4 Omissions
We particularly regret the omission of Clauses
on Conservation Areas. Paragraphs 278 and 279 in the Explanatory
Notes outline positive changes proposed in designation and protection
levels but until the final Bill is published, we do not have information
on public involvement in the designation of Conservation Areas,
rights of appeal or enforcement. The 10,000 or so Conservation
Areas are the main planks of heritage protection and involve thousands
of people who care for their local environment. They are an extremely
valuable way of maintaining and enhancing the local environment,
sustaining the identity of our cities, towns and villages and
a means of involving the public in discussion about what should
be protected and why.
Similarly, local listing has huge potential
to engage new audiences in protecting what they value. Lack of
detail implies a lower value is being given to the local scene
and to local participation which was not in the spirit of the
White Paper. Given that one of the core principles of the Heritage
White Paper was "maximising opportunity for inclusion and
involvement" we very much regret the omission of fuller details
on Conservation Areas and local designation.
Finally the section on English Heritage grant
and loan making powers is also important to the heritage sector
and its omission from this pre-legislative scrutiny part of the
Bill process is regrettable.
It is regrettable that these significant sections
are not given the same degree of pre-legislative scrutiny and
public consultation as the other sections.
— We recommend that the omitted sections
are published by DCMS with some form of public consultation before
the Bill is finalised.
3.ESTIMATE OF
COSTS AND
BENEFITS SET
OUT IN
THE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
The new system will not work if stakeholders,
English Heritage, Local Authorities, the private and voluntary
sectors are unable to fulfil their part in implementing it effectively
and within a reasonable, defined period. The costs and benefits
set out in the Impact Assessment are part of a much bigger picture.
3.1 Central and local government
Additional responsibilities transferred to English
Heritage and to local authorities must be properly funded together
with capacity building for other stakeholders if the new regime
is to work. Joint lobbying in support of English Heritage improved
the last CSR settlement but, next time round, the Treasury should
build the costs of implementing the Heritage Bill and other measures
into its early plans rather than respond to eleventh hour pressures.
We are not in a position to question the costs
set out in the Impact Assessment, but suggest the following points
should be clarified:
— How the "savings" of £4.80
million over five years will fall back to DCMS, English Heritage
and local authorities to give the "net" figure of £1.7
million?
— How the shortfall between EH estimated
needs and its CSR settlement will be managed and what impact this
will have on other English Heritage operations and public profile?
— What other costs arising from transition
and implementation have been explored and when these will be made
public?
We welcome DCMS commitment to meeting the costs
of new burdens placed on local authorities by the Draft Heritage
Protection Bill, provided this does not impinge upon the future
funding of English Heritage. We are also concerned how funding
is safeguarded in Local Authority budgets to secure the new heritage
protection system when CLG has confirmed to Heritage Link that
"it is for local authorities to decide on their local priorities".
— How will CLG and/or DCMS ensure that
an appropriate level of funding to support the Heritage Protection
Bill at local level—for transitional, implementation, operating
or training costs—is not diverted elsewhere?
3.2 Non government heritage sector
It is remarkable that the impact on the non
government sector and in particular our own members has been so
lightly dismissed given the core principle for maximising opportunities
for inclusion and involvement.
We welcome the continuing statutory role of
the national amenity societies in heritage asset consent but increasing
or extending their involvement to registration and allied procedures
such as appeals, CNIRs and Heritage Partnership Agreements is
not resource neutral. The Impact Assessment does not ascribe any
costs to the expanded role:.
"Amenity societies may also incur costs
in providing advice on all designations. However while they will
be statutory consultees, they are not statutorily obliged to respond
and are therefore free to fulfil this role in the light of their
resources and priorities." Para 14
The new statutory duty for local authorities
to receive and take into account expert advice on heritage asset
consent is welcome. Where in-house expertise is not available,
this can only fall to the voluntary sector in the majority of
cases.
As expert advice is the key to the whole protection
system, it seems extraordinary to recognise the knowledge and
expertise available through the voluntary sector but deem it optional.
Apart from the national amenity societies' statutory role we expected
the contribution of civic societies, local history and archaeological
societies and other representatives from the local communities
would be recognised. They have a major contribution to make in
raising awareness of the new regime, its operation and implications
not only to local groups but also to the wider public.
We hope that in the development of guidance
there will be more emphasis on the opportunities in the whole
process of protection for amenity and stakeholder groups to contribute
their views at an appropriate stage rather than at the end when
they can make little difference and their views are more likely
to be considered obstructive.
— What steps is English Heritage taking
to understand the impact of the new regime on the voluntary heritage
sector and its contribution?
— What steps is English Heritage taking
to provide support in enabling the voluntary heritage sector to
play an effective role?
Heritage Partnership Agreements could be a valuable
means of managing historic assets in a range of different ownerships,
bringing efficiency savings and long term benefits. However the
pilots demonstrate that they are resource heavy in the early stages.
— We recommend that further work is
carried out to provide a better understanding of the resources
needed to support setting up HPAs effectively.
4.STAFFING AND
SKILLS LEVELS
NEEDED FOR
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE
PROVISIONS IN
THE DRAFT
BILL
We are glad that the Committee is addressing
the delivery side of the new heritage protection regime. We understand
that English Heritage is currently developing an implementation
programme:
— English Heritage should consult key
stakeholders in the sector at an early stage in drawing up implementation
programmes in order to achieve the best possible partnerships
in training and capacity building.
Understanding the special interest in a heritage
asset stands at the centre of the system, making the new standard
of designation descriptions the key to the real benefits of the
new regime. English Heritage staffing capacity is such that the
half a million existing descriptions will take years to upgrade.
Piecemeal updating, through strategic programmes of national designation
or in response to risks is not going to resolve the backlog.
Proposals for "transitional arrangements"
are yet to be published, but we are concerned that present funding
plans could leave little opportunity for an accelerated revision
of current descriptions. Without these new descriptions within
a reasonable period, the old and new systems will, in effect,
operate in parallel. This could cause much confusion, undermining
the simplification and clarity that the new system sets out to
deliver.
— Additional staff resources for English
Heritage are needed to bring the "legacy" designation
descriptions up to the standard required to achieve the benefits
of the new protection regime.
The Committee is already aware of the dearth
of staff and skills levels to resource heritage protection in
Local Authorities so they will also be aware that the DCMS commitment
to fund the Local Authorities' additional administrative burdens,
though welcome does not resolve the existing crisis in staffing
and skills in Local Authorities' historic environment services.
— What measures are DCMS and CLG taking
to strengthen public confidence in the capacity of local authorities
to deliver efficient and effective historic environment services?.
We hope that the complete and revised text of
the Bill will include much more scope for national and local voluntary
heritage organisations to engage formally with heritage protection.
Their experience of the heritage protection system, their advisory
and educational services as well as their ties with the local
community gives them a role in facilitating the transition not
only for local groups but also for the general public. As well
as bringing their extensive knowledge and expertise to bear, participation
increases levels of civic involvement and responsibility. Even
limited additional capacity building will lever in additional
funding and expertise.
— Voluntary heritage bodies should
be supported to maximise opportunities for public participation
and civic involvement in the Heritage Protection Bill and to spread
understanding and appreciation of the new system.
May 2008
| 
