2 Incompleteness
8. The draft Bill was published with a number of
significant omissions. Clauses relating to the management of
conservation areas, the protection of buildings of local interest,
and grant and loan-making powers of English Heritage and local
authorities, were all absent, and English Heritage outlined in
its written submission a number of other limitations.[12]
English Heritage is confident that the remaining gaps can be filled
before the Bill is introduced to Parliament.[13]
Nevertheless, the heritage sector is dissatisfied that its opportunity
to comment in the Committee's inquiry was undermined by its inability
to assess the complete package of reforms.[14]
As the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers
told us, "it is difficult to take [a] rounded view of what
we would like to see in terms of change and additions [to the
Bill]".[15]
9. Conservation Area clauses are an important aspect
of the reforms that the sector has not yet had the opportunity
to scrutinise adequately. DCMS issued these clauses on the eve
of the Committee's oral evidence session with the sector and none
of the witnesses had had sufficient time to review the content
to any meaningful extent. Similarly, the majority of the written
submissions were unable to address the adequacy or otherwise of
these clauses.
10. We asked the Minister why the draft Bill was
still incomplete given that DCMS had initiated the process of
heritage protection reform as far back as 2001. She accepted that
the Department could have done better, but she insisted that "policy
has been decided" and that "the key clauses are already
out there".[16]
She gave a commitment to consult on the newly published conservation
area clauses, yet instead of the usual three months for consultation,
a period of only six or eight weeks is likely.[17]
This would appear to run counter to the call by the Institute
of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) for "proper time
for public consultation on those clauses before we all rush to
a judgment".[18]
11. The Committee values the opportunity to undertake
pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, yet the effectiveness
of this process has been undermined by the incomplete nature of
the legislation. We find it deeply disappointing that we have
not had the opportunity to review the draft Bill in its entirety.
The sector has been denied the opportunity to examine thoroughly
all aspects of the proposed legislation, in what amounts to a
fundamental modernisation of the heritage protection system. We
recommend that a complete schedule of all further necessary legislation
and guidance be published as soon as possible, together with a
timetable and arrangements for appropriate consultation and implementation.
12. Many of the submissions received by the Committee
called for a review of Planning Policy Guidelines (PPGs) 15 and
16 which deal with the historic environment. According to the
Standing Conference on London Archaeology, while other PPGs have
been updated, PPGs 15 and 16 have lagged behind.[19]
For instance, PPG 16 Archaeology and Planning, is now 18 years
old, and the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers
for England (ALGAO:England) maintains that it will need to be
replaced once the provisions of the Bill are adopted.[20]
The National Trust states that "many of the changes proposed
within the Bill will not be effective without supportive planning
guidance".[21]
13. There was widespread concern on the part of witnesses[22]
and in the written submissions[23]
that there appeared a lack of urgency by DCMS on the necessary
revisions to PPGs 15 and 16 because, as planning guidance, this
was a DCLG responsibility. English Heritage stated that "the
revision of PPG 15 and 16 is absolutely fundamental[…]you
cannot have the new Bill without that".[24]
The Minister assured the Committee that it was DCMS's intention
for the Bill and the revised planning guidance to come into operation
simultaneously.[25]
14. The Government must prioritise the revision
of PPGs 15 and 16 to ensure that the new guidance on planning
policy can be implemented at the same time as the Bill. It would
be unsatisfactory for the heritage sector to be consulted on the
draft Bill without also being consulted on a draft of the revised
planning guidance. The sector must have the opportunity to reflect
upon the complete package of reforms.
15. The importance of ensuring that all aspects
of heritage are covered in the reforms is exemplified in the submission
by the Theatres Trust.[26]
The Trust is keen to ensure that it is formally considered a statutory
consultee on heritage matters relating to theatres. Such matters
include Heritage Asset Consents, the compiling and amending of
Heritage Registers, and appeals on potential heritage structures
and on "Certificates of no intention to register".[27]
We recommend that the Government ensures that the role of statutory
consultees such as the Theatres Trust is properly incorporated
into the heritage protection reforms in addition to their existing
role in the planning system.
12 Ev 38-39 Back
13
Ev 38 Back
14
E.g. Ev 26; Ev 61; Ev 105 Back
15
Q 3 Back
16
Q 58 Back
17
Q 58 Back
18
Q 3 Back
19
Ev 64 Back
20
Ev 7 Back
21
Ev 80 Back
22
Q 1; Q 2; Q 46; Q 55; Q 57 Back
23
E.g. Ev 64; Ev 7-8; Ev 78; Ev 128 Back
24
Q 63 Back
25
Q 67 Back
26
Ev 84 Back
27
Ev 84 Back
| 
