5 Enforcement
35. English Heritage emphasises the benefits of positive
management of the historic environment that will flow from the
Bill. It refers to this as "constructive conservation".[73]
However, it became clear during the Committee's inquiry in 2006
that not all stewardship of heritage assets is benign or altruistic.
Disregard for the historic environment can take two forms:
- unauthorised work in the form
of damaging alterations or demolitions without prior consideration
of the merits of the building or the proposed works; and
- neglect of buildings and monuments which then
become "at risk" of decay.
It is estimated that there are approximately 37,000
listed buildings "at risk" in England (about 8% of the
total number of listed buildings).[74]
36. In maintaining an historic building, the onus
is on the local authority to step in when serious neglect has
occurred, not on the owner to keep it in a reasonable state of
repair.[75] The absence
from the Bill of a duty of care on owners is criticised by the
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Standing
Conference on London Archaeology, both of which argue that it
represents a missed opportunity to encourage or require preventative
maintenance.[76]
37. The Chief Executive of English Heritage told
us that "enforcement is a planning issue and it is not a
heritage issue" and "it is not part of heritage protection
legislation".[77]
He insisted that the powers are all there and the difficulty was
in persuading those who have the powers (the local authorities)
to use them.[78] In the
case of unauthorised works, current guidance in PPG15 encourages
local authorities to prosecute where a good case can be made.[79]
Furthermore, in 2006 DCLG published "Best Practice Guidance
on Listed Building Prosecutions" to encourage local authorities
to use their enforcement powers more frequently. However, Carrick
District Council stressed the resource limitations under which
local authorities operate, remarking that enforcement officers
are already "incredibly pushed".[80]
The CLBA believed that "the real problem with heritage protection
is not the law: it is implementation and enforcement".[81]
Yet the Minister told us that she was "quite satisfied that
we do exercise the enforcement powers pretty well at present".[82]
38. Neither DCMS nor English Heritage presented
any evidence that they have reviewed the operation or effectiveness
of current enforcement powers. Nor do they appear to have considered
any amendments to the legislation which would improve the operation
or effectiveness of these powers or reinforce the guidance published
by DCLG. We consider that such a review should be conducted as
a matter or urgency and the results published with a view to improving
the operation of the legislation.
39. Clause 130 of the draft Bill proposes that a
local planning authority may only issue a heritage asset enforcement
notice after consultation with English Heritage (or, in Wales,
Welsh Ministers). We received evidence from the ex-Head of Land-Use
Planning at English Heritage that this will place a further burden
on English Heritage resources.[83]
It would also appear to run counter to the statements by the Chief
Executive of English Heritage about encouraging local authority
action and the Minister's view about streamlining.
40. We take the view that this additional stage
of consultation would be likely to render the enforcement powers
even less effective than at present and recommend that this requirement
be removed.
73 Ev 37 Back
74
The figures in paragraph 160 of our 2006 report an estimated 7.3%
at-risk based on a 1990-91 English Heritage sample of 43,000 buildings
with another 14.6% as vulnerable; Buildings at Risk 2005, English
Heritage Back
75
Q 83 Back
76
Ev 64; Ev 124 Back
77 Q
81 Back
78 Q
80 Back
79
Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the historic environment,
para 3.47 Back
80
Q 8 Back
81
Ev 116 Back
82
Q 79 Back
83
Ev 143 Back
| 
