Memorandum submitted by Heritage Partnership
Agreements
I made my own 700 acre Estate available as a
pilot to try out the principles of Heritage Partnership Agreements.
The Estate comprises about 750 acres with a
grade II* house, two further grade II farmhouses, a grade II lodge
and a grade II cob and slate barn. It also has a scheduled ancient
monument and is conditionally exempt from IHT.
It seemed an ideal opportunity to get English
Heritage, the local Planning Authority and the owner (me) together
to discuss the way forward for the built heritage on the Estate
given the changes in farming practices, tenures and occupation;
the historic nature of the buildings and the landscape, uncertainty
about the extent of the curtilage of various buildings and possible
alternative economic uses for the buildings in a way that would
endure even if staff in the various organisations were to change
in future.
I felt that having a Heritage Partnership Agreement
in place would mean that I could, with confidence, commission
professional advice on building repair and improvement and deal
with comparatively straightforward matters that had recently arisen
such as signage on the ancient monument. It would help me too
to understand the viewpoints of the regulating bodies.
I envisaged a two way process, hence the term
partnership, which would save all parties money and time and lead
to a sensible application of the legislation balancing the retention
of important historical integrity with a degree of pragmatism.
In practice the pilot was never completed due
to staff changes and resource pressures at English Heritage and
then subsequently pressures on my own time. Nevertheless I still
believe strongly that the principle is sound. There are some lessons
I would take away from the pilot as follows:
1. The system seemed popular with the Local
Authority and I believe that the local Conservation Officer welcomed
the chance to discuss some of the principles with English Heritage
which enabled the relative merits of the buildings to be looked
at in a national and not just a local context.
2. As owner, I was pleased to have the opportunity
to have that same discussion and to build a constructive dialogue
with the two other organisations. It also focused my mind on what
viable uses there may or may not be for important historical buildings
before it becomes too late and they are beyond repair.
3. English Heritage was not ready in staff
terms for a project like this. Due to its novelty, too many staff
were involved, each wanting an input into the report, so that
the draft read like a series of different sections cut and pasted
together without cohesion, which it was. Each staff member seemed
reluctant therefore to take responsibility for the pragmatic overall
approach that was needed. I believe that this is a problem that
would be ironed out as these became more common.
4. I believe that when I come to submit applications
for future work, the process will be easier and I hope that, if
the legislation is enacted, I will be able to put a Heritage Partnership
Agreement into place.
June 2008
|
