Memorandum submitted by the Cambridge
Colleges' Bursars' Environment and Planning
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This submission in respect of the Draft
Heritage Protection Bill is made on behalf of the Cambridge Colleges'
Bursars' Environment and Planning Sub-Committee (CCBEPSC).
1.2 A submission was made to the Department
of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) by the CCBEPSC in May 2007
in response to the Heritage Protection for the 21st Century White
Paper, attached at Appendix 1.
1.3 The CCBEPSC was established to report
to the Cambridge Colleges' Bursars' Committee with regard to all
issues related to the built and natural environment, including
Town & Country Planning, Building Conservation and Transport
matters.
1.4 The CCBEPSC also assumes responsibility
for representation of the Colleges' views in respect of these
and related matters. This submission is therefore the view of
the Cambridge Colleges as a collective of educational establishments.
It is not the view of any specific college and similarly, it is
not the view of the University of Cambridge, which is a confederation
of Colleges, Faculties and other institutions.
1.5 The Committee will be aware that the
Cambridge Colleges are owners, occupants and custodians of many
important, historical buildings within Cambridge in their operation
as higher education establishments. Many are owners of significant
amounts of property and indeed historic property across the country,
although it is important to recognise that this response is made
within the context of the Colleges as operational educational
establishments.
1.6 The Colleges' buildings are in use throughout
the year, occupied all year by graduates and during term time
by undergraduates. Many colleges make use of the facilities during
vacations for residential conferences.
2. COMMENTS
2.1 The CCBEPSC welcomes the Heritage Protection
Bill in principle and in terms of its aspirations and objectives.
The CCBEPSC consider that there is a need for simplification and
streamlining of the current system for control of development
affecting the historic environment, for all involved in the process.
However, the CCBEPSC consider that the success of the proposed
provisions will depend upon the detail for the operation of the
new system.
Resourcing
2.2 One of the CCBEPSC's biggest concerns
is that of the resourcing of the new system. Our interpretation
of the Bill and its implications, is that it will mean increased
workload for English Heritage, particularly in their new role
as designators of "Historic Assets". English Heritage's
existing role as advisors to the Secretary of State and Planning
Authorities within the context of current heritage consents and
permissions will effectively continue through their role as advisors
in the determination of "Historic Asset Consents". This
increased remit for English Heritage must be properly resourced
to allow for the ease of operation of the new system.
2.3 We are also concerned as to the availability
of resources to the asset owner, particularly time resources,
in operating within the requirements of the new system. These
concerns particularly relate to involvement with the preparation
of Heritage Partnership Agreements (HPA) and this is discussed
below.
Heritage Partnership Agreements
2.4 The CCBEPSC's question the value of
the proposed HPA. The pilot project document associated with the
Heritage Protection White Paper was not conclusive about the benefits
of this approach to the control of development affecting Historic
Assets. There is clearly scope to be generally positive about
the idea and the advantages of the asset owner, English Heritage
and the Local Planning Authority (LPA) working together to assign
degrees of value to a complex asset. However, we see only limited
benefit in terms of the workability of an HPA. The HPA is intended
to give a grouped or themed consent to minor or repeated works
to an asset. In reality, we consider that there will be very few
areas of work to a listed building which could be dealt with in
this way.
2.5 At the present moment in time, Colleges
are having to face a significant amount of regulatory intervention
promoting changes in design and additions to both services and
facilities within the College estate. The regulatory pressures
stem from the need to provide fire alarms, emergency lighting,
fire exit signs, additional shower and washing facilities and
alterations to kitchens, as well as provision of facilities for
the disabled. These regulatory requirements will therefore also
have resourcing implications for the Colleges and involvement
with preparation of HPA's would add to this workload.
2.6 Required changes to buildings and facilities
are driven by a range of comparatively recent legislation. Much
of this work is unlikely to be intrusive but may require disruption
to plasterwork whilst cables and fittings are fitted. There are
also the ongoing "big picture" challenges which involve
difficult balances/choices such as those prompted by access, climate
change and energy conservation. For a system of HPA's to be beneficial,
the system must allow for smaller or themed works to be removed
from formal control processes. Building complexities mean that
there are differences from College to College and even between
buildings within a given College. We are concerned that HPA's
will be unable to successfully account for these complexities,
without onerously comprehensive agreements. The potential implication
is that work will be duplicated, because of a need to apply for
Historic Asset Consent, in view of an HPA failing to successfully
identify what can, or cannot be undertaken without the need for
Historic Asset Consent. We are also concerned as to the usefulness
of an HPA in terms of accommodating repeat works, as it is questionable
how often the similar works may take place, if at all.
2.7 In terms of resources for the owner,
it is clearly a good idea to set proposals for alteration to a
listed building into a long term strategy set within an HPA or
similar. We are doubtful however as to whether works could actually
be dealt with any differently to that within the current system
of formal control processes. The CCBEPSC considers that for proper
and efficient control, a properly resourced system, both at the
local level and within English Heritage would be the most appropriate
way forward.
3. CONLUSIONS
3.1 We are supportive of the Bill in terms
of its aspirations and objectives of simplifying and streamlining
the current system for the identification, protection and management
of our Heritage.
3.2 We are concerned however that the new
system should be properly resourced in order that its objectives
are achieved. We consider that English Heritage's remit will be
extended and therefore there is a need for sufficient resourcing
in that regard.
3.3 We are also concerned as to the implications
for asset owners particularly with regard to the preparation of
HPA's. Colleges would need to spend a great deal of time and money
preparing HPA's, involving a great deal of hands-on assistance
from English Heritage and the LPA.
3.4 Furthermore, we consider that the value
of an HPA is questionable. HPA's would need to be onerously comprehensive
to accommodate the complexities presented by the Colleges' buildings.
HPA's may fail in this regard and lead to the need for Historic
Asset Consent applications in any event, effectively leading to
duplication of workload.
3.5 HPA's may operate successfully in relation
to less complex buildings and therefore they must be an optional
mechanism for control of works and development. The CCBEPSC considers
that proper resourcing of the control system at the local level
and with English Heritage would best achieve the objective of
achieving an efficient system.
3.6 The Cambridge Colleges would be willing
to cooperate through further dialogue to help develop ideas and
measures which could be relevant to owners and managers of historic
buildings.
June 2008
APPENDIX 1
The White Paper, Heritage Protection for the
Twenty First Century, invites comments by 1 June 2007. It is perhaps
a matter of regret that this White Paper was only drawn to the
attention of the Chairman of the Cambridge Bursars' Committee
well into the consultation period and, in the time available,
it has not been possible to take full soundings from every college.
However, it is noted (perhaps with some disappointment) that the
Heritage Protection Review's assessment of eight pilot projects
did not include any Oxbridge college, nor as I understand, was
an offer made for us to be involved. I have noted the preference
for a conservation plan to enable management agreements to be
achieved and can see the wisdom of having such well researched
documentation to hand. However, at the present moment in time,
colleges are having to face a significant amount of regulatory
intervention promoting changes in design and additions to both
services and facilities within the college estate. The regulatory
pressures stem from the need to provide fire alarms, emergency
lighting, fire exit signs, additional shower and washing facilities
and alterations to kitchens as well as provision of facilities
for the disabled. These changes are driven by a range of comparatively
recent legislation. Much of this work is unlikely to be intrusive
but may require disruption to plasterwork whilst cables and fittings
are fitted. There are, of course, the ongoing "big picture"
challenges which will involve difficult balances/choices such
as those prompted by access, climate change and energy conservation.
All of this is equally dependant upon the necessary skills being
available within the community to undertake the tasks to the standard
required.
The present concern of colleges is likely to
be on the need for adequate resources to be available within English
Heritage to provide timely and informed responses—the biggest
impediment to joint working. Nothing will be gained from any amendment
to the system if it still fails to deliver swifter action.
As far as Heritage Partnership Agreements (HPA)
are concerned—the ideas within the White Paper and the observations
within the associated pilot project document are not conclusive
about the benefits of this issue. There is clearly scope to be
generally positive about the idea and the advantages of the asset-owner,
English Heritage and the Local Planning Authority (LPA) working
together to assign degrees of value to a complex asset, but I
can see only limited benefit in terms of the workability of an
HPA. The HPA is intended to give a grouped or themed consent to
minor or repeated works to an asset—in reality, there will
be very few areas of work to a listed building which could be
dealt with in this way.
The additional, complicating factor not reflected
in the White Paper is the complexity of listed buildings in use
in the colleges, where requirements deriving from a range of different
legislation must be balanced against the asset value. This appears
to be a constant and very significant difficulty for the colleges—and
it would be helpful if the White Paper was able to inform other
areas of the legislation in order to lessen, or at least simplify,
the burden, especially in relation to buildings of clearly designated
status.
In terms of resources for the owner, it is clearly
a good idea to set proposals for alteration to a listed building
into a long term strategy set within a "Conservation Plan",
but I am doubtful that many of the resultant consents could actually
be dealt with any differently than within the current consent
system.
I am persuaded to conclude:
1. that colleges would need to spend a great
deal of time and money preparing a conservation plan leading to
a potential HPA, involving a great deal of hands-on assistance
from English Heritage and the LPA, and
2. that its value is questionable. It will
be a matter of discussion between the owner, English Heritage
and LPA as to how much would be expected in terms of the Plan—and
this could be prepared over a long period—but I am concerned
that these will be required from a very early stage after the
amendments to the legislation to accompany future consent applications.
The Paper states that the HPAs would be "voluntary",
but as with the existing consideration of listed building consent
application, these can be considered to cause incremental detriment
if judged in isolation and the requirement for a Plan under the
new legislation would kick in very quickly. This would be a very
significant resource issue for the colleges.
Finally, I am sure that Cambridge colleges would
be willing to cooperate through further dialogue to help develop
ideas and measures which could be relevant to owners and managers
of historic buildings.
| 
