Memorandum submitted by the National Trust
1. The National Trust welcomes publication
of the Draft Heritage Protection Bill and supports the broad thrust
of the changes to the heritage designation regime that it introduces.
The proposed legislative changes provide a significant opportunity
to develop a system of heritage protection which is fit for purpose
in the 21st century, enabling us to enhance and modernise how
we look after our amazing cultural inheritance. It also represents
an important step towards the Government's principle of putting
the historic environment at the heart of an effective land use
planning system by enabling local communities to participate better
in the process and simplifying the legislative framework of heritage
regulation.
2. We have been involved with preliminary
discussions regarding the structure and scope of the Heritage
White Paper and participated in pilot studies for the proposed
Heritage Partnership Agreements at two of our properties at Godolphin
in Cornwall and the Langdale Neolithic Axe Factories in the Lake
District.
3. In addition to commenting on a number
of specific proposed legislative changes included in the Bill,
which are outlined below, we have a number of broader aspirations
and concerns which set the context of the proposed reforms.
4. Firstly, we believe the Bill provides
a welcome platform to revitalise the Government's commitment to
heritage in its widest sense. As the huge volume of support and
enthusiasm for successful History Matters campaign in 2006 demonstrated,
there is tremendous public enthusiasm for history and heritage.
This is further evidenced by continued growth and support for
organisations like the National Trust and English Heritage, participation
in Heritage Open Days (almost a million people in a single weekend
take part) and the continued passion for history in the bookshops
and TV schedules. The popularity of heritage has also been confirmed
by Taking Part the DCMS's own research into participation levels
across its range of interests—with visits to historic sites
coming top of the list showing 70% of people visiting historic
sites at least once a year.
5. We are concerned, however, that this
enthusiasm and interest is not matched by the Government. Heritage
regularly fails to feature in key announcements from Government,
including from the lead Department (DCMS), and has long struggled
to secure the levels of investment needed to secure the future
of our important heritage assets. The above inflation settlement
for English Heritage in last year's Comprehensive Spending Review
(CSR) was very welcome. However, it comes after 10 years of cuts,
growing pressure on resources from the Lottery and increasing
costs of conservation—being exacerbated by the challenges
of climate change.
6. The Bill does not present a radical vision
and is but one piece of the jigsaw for securing a better future
for the historic environment, providing only the primary legislative
changes for the designated heritage assets. Although important
and useful, the Heritage Bill should be viewed as one aspect of
the broader actions needed to ensure the value of the historic
environment is recognised and managed, rather then be seen as
the priority or the panacea. We are concerned it will absorb undue
energy in the Government and English Heritage at the expense of
wider concerns. Addressing the broader issues such as costs of
maintenance, the effect of incremental damage of the local environment,
the loss of valuable skills and responding to social, economic
and environmental changes should be considered as central to any
consideration of how to ensure the historic environment meets
the requirements of the 21st century.
7. Whilst the Bill does not tackle these
concerns, it provides a welcome platform to confirm the important
contribution heritage makes across a range of Government priorities,
including civic pride and identity, and to build on the Government's
commitment to the nation's heritage—as signalled by the
CSR outcome. We urge the Committee to ask the Government to make
the most of this platform.
8. Secondly, the National Trust can only
give the Bill its support if the necessary resources, staffing
and cross-Governmental support for effective delivery is also
in place. We share fears, apparent throughout the heritage sector,
that, without sufficient and appropriate resources, skills and
capacity building amongst those responsible for delivering the
new and more demanding and complex protection system, notably
in local government, these reforms will unravel a regime which
has allowed for the protection of our cultural inheritance over
the last 60 years. We would rather have no legislation than a
Bill which does not have the means for its effective delivery.
9. Thirdly, we are concerned the Bill continues
to overlook two opportunities for stronger protection and management
of our historic environment which should be included as part and
parcel of the reforms to the designation system. These are:
(i) fulfilling the Government's commitment
to refreshing the planning policy guidance for the historic environment
and archaeology (PPG 15 and 16 and Welsh Office Circulars 61/98
and 60/96) with a view to strengthening provisions; and
(ii) introducing stronger protection through
the planning system for the settings of historic parks and gardens—which
are intrinsic to their cultural value and extremely vulnerable
to development.
10. We urge the Committee to seek a Ministerial
Statement summarising the complementary initiatives around the
Government's commitment to the historic environment. This will
give a greater reassurance to those who care about the historic
environment that the Government places an equal value on the contribution
it makes to society.
11. Our key issues on the detail of the
Bill are that:
— the aims of the Heritage Bill
are fully implemented and delivered by the Welsh Assembly Government/Cadw;
— the Bill will only be successfully
implemented and delivered by cross-Government working of which
there is little visible evidence at present;
— the Bill delivers a system which
can ensure the protection of locally valued historic environment
to the same degree as the nationally designation by adequately
installing and delivering legislation which enables communities
to identify and protect places that are important to them;
— the welcome proposals for Heritage
Partnership Agreements are effectively delivered and resourced;
— legislative provision is made
for local planning authorities to define the settings of heritage
assets within Local Development Frameworks; and
— there is full integration with
the provisions of the Marine Bill and that this addresses the
need for the coastal and marine historic environment to respond
to coastal change exacerbated by climate change.
THE ROLE
OF THE
NATIONAL TRUST
12. The National Trust is Europe's largest
conservation body with over 3.5 million members, 50,000 volunteers,
an annual turnover approaching £400 million and a presence
throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We currently protect
and manage on behalf of the nation over 250,000 hectares of countryside
and 1,100km of coastline together with a significant proportion
of the country's designated sites and buildings of heritage significance.
This includes six World Heritage Sites, over 6,000 listed buildings,
1,200 scheduled ancient monuments, 149 registered museums and
8% of registered historic parks and gardens.
13. Our property portfolio is hugely diverse,
ranging from some of the nation's most iconic and well-known sites—from
Sutton Hoo to the great country houses of Hardwick Hall or Kingston
Lacy. We also care for many of the more ordinary and everyday
elements of our rich and diverse cultural heritage. This includes
places like the Back to Backs in central Birmingham, the Workhouse
in Southwell, Nottinghamshire, over 1,000 vernacular buildings,
three lighthouses and a gold mine. As well as our houses, we look
after a diverse collection of gardens and historic landscapes,
like Stourhead or Sissinghurst, are responsible for a virtual
national collection of works of art, from Titian to Turner, and
look after a rich and diverse industrial archaeology, like the
Stone Age Axe factories in the Lake District.
14. The National Trust has a significant
interest in the marine historic environment. A recent assessment
of the marine historic environment revealed that almost 50% of
the current 48 Protected Historic Wrecks in the territorial waters
of England, Northern Ireland and Wales lie within a mile of a
National Trust property. This includes wrecks like the "Assurance"
and "Pomone" just off the Needles, Isle of Wight (naval
shipwrecks from the 18th and 19th century); the Rill Cove wreck
off the Lizard (17th century); and the wreck of the Holland V,
one of the first submarines developed by the Royal Navy, just
off the Sussex Coast. In a number of cases we also retain manorial
rights of wreck, including the Admiralty of Purbeck and around
the Lizard, that bring specific responsibilities to the Trust
for material brought up from the seabed or washed ashore onto
our land
BROAD AIMS
AND SCOPE
OF THE
HERITAGE PROTECTION
BILL
15. The Heritage Protection Bill provides
a once in a generation opportunity to secure the best possible
system for valuing and conserving the nation's rich cultural heritage
and we are pleased to see that many anomalies with the current
system are being addressed through rationalisation of the listing
process. We also welcome the proposals for allowing enhanced opportunities
for civic participation and understanding which the new regime
could deliver. Other measures that, if implemented adequately,
will assist management of the historic environment are the introduction
of Heritage Partnership Agreements and provisional registration
for assets being considered for designation.
16. We have a number of concerns regarding
the legislative reforms within the Bill that we wish the Committee
to explore further during the pre-legislative process: notably
Heritage Partnership Agreements, protection of settings and of
undesignated aspects of the historic environment, and marine legislation.
There are a number of omissions from the Bill for which we await
the secondary legislation and guidance necessary to give much
greater clarity and purpose (see Annex).
(a) Developing a unified approach to the
historic environment
17. One of the principles behind the introduction
of the Heritage Bill was to cut down on onerous and complicated
bureaucracy for owners and managers of the historic environment.
Overall, with the right resources and support, the principle changes
in England will work well—with English Heritage playing
a central role. However, in Wales, with Cadw retaining their scheduled
Ancient Monuments (SAM) administration responsibilities, these
benefits will not be realised. Whilst we recognise that there
isn't a short term solution in Wales, we would urge that Welsh
Ministers use their legislative powers to modify or adapt the
legislation better to meet the needs of Wales, whilst taking account
of the overall aims of the legislation, and commit publicly to
delivering this over an agreed timescale. In addition, there are
concerns regarding the responsibility within Wales for appeals
and designation. We wish to see a transparent process that is
undertaken by an organisation with the requisite knowledge and
resources.
18. We are also concerned by the limited
evidence of cross Government working on implementation of the
Bill's legislative changes and its links with other policy areas.
We would like to see greater clarity over the link with the work
and policy agenda of the Department for Communities and Local
Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs. We feel that the Bill and the work around implementation
needs to be jointly sponsored by the Department for Communities
and Local Government as the new system is to be administrated
by local authorities and negotiated partly through the planning
system. We were surprised to see that there was an absence of
any visible interaction between the two departments within the
Bill or the Heritage White Paper. The same is true for the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whose contribution to
the continued protection and care of our rural cultural heritage,
including through the England Rural Development Programme, is
immensely valuable. We urge this oversight to be corrected through
ensuring joint action to follow up the White Paper. It is also
important to strengthen the connection with the proposals for
new marine legislation—about which there is greater detail
below.
(b) Maximising opportunity for inclusion
and involvement
19. A key omission from the Bill is clauses
relating to the protection of the local undesignated historic
environment. Whilst Clause 215 does place a duty on local authorities
to assess assets and consult owners there is nothing in the way
of ensuring that mention in the historic environment records will
provide additional protection. Whether it is row of Victorian
shop fronts or a memorial cross, local heritage is irreplaceable
and passionately valued by local communities. Over 90% of adults
living in England think that when improving local places it is
worth saving their historic features. We encourage the use of
local designations as a means of providing local communities with
the opportunity to identify and manage those aspects of the heritage
that are important to them. We believe that this proposal has
the greatest potential to address the frequently voiced concern
that buildings and monuments that are valued by communities are
ignored by the heritage protection system. Careful consideration
should be given to implementation and it should be backed up with
sufficient resources. We have a concern over the status of local
lists and believe that use of Article 4(1) as the process to implement
protection would be better replaced by recognising local lists
as legitimate designations in planning, so giving local sites
automatic protection from demolition. We urge the Committee to
seek more information being provided on local designation and
the opportunities for public consultation before the Bill is formally
introduced.
20. The significance of the wider undesignated
landscape and how this may be protected and managed appropriately
has not been picked up by the Bill and supporting work. We feel
that recognition of the importance of the wider landscape would
be of immense value for sites such as Stonehenge—allowing
for whole landscape rich in cultural assets to be afforded wider
protection. We are pleased that Registered Landscapes in Wales
will be included on the Register which enhances the status of
these significant historic open spaces. We can see no reason why
the same approach isn't taken in England. For example Flatford
Mill in Suffolk is an AONB but also has artistic and historic
significance as a landscape which could be given special protection
under the new designation rules. We have confidence in English
Heritage to designate sensibly and to establish appropriate open
space designations in those areas where piecemeal designation
has not worked.
(c) The historic environment at the heart
of an effective planning system
21. Key to the success of the reforms will
be clearer links with the land use planning system. We are concerned
at the continued delay in reforming the planning guidance for
the historic environment—at present PPG15 and 16 and Welsh
Offices Circulars 61/96 and 60/96. Many of the changes proposed
within the Bill will not be effective without supportive planning
guidance. We believe that any revision of planning guidance should
strengthen existing protection of the historic environment and
recognise its significant value in ways that deliver the Government's
commitment to establishing the historic environment at the heart
of the planning system. Planning guidance for Wales should also
cross refer to the changes in legislation and a Ministerial Interim
Planning Policy Statement supported by Technical Advice Notes
needs to be produced as soon as possible. There should be participation
from the heritage sector and elsewhere in this process.
22. We also believe that the review of PPG15/6
and the Welsh Office Circulars need not be delayed as there are
issues such as climate change adaptation and public engagement
that could be fixed now without changes in legislation. We do
not believe that the English Heritage Conservation Principles
can be considered a substitute to the review of planning policy.
These are for English Heritage`s internal use and they do not
apply to Wales. Cadw has no immediate plans to produce a similar
set of principles.
23. We are concerned that other planning
policy activity should integrate with the changes to heritage
legislation. For example in PPS20 on Coastal Planning, the policy
will focus on management and control on development on eroding
coasts. Proposals such as temporary planning consents to help
maintain the economic life of an area for as long as the land
remains and the idea of rolling back settlements will have a potential
impact on designated historic environment. We believe that there
needs to be greater integration with this policy as consultation
takes place later this year.
DETAILED COMMENTS
(a) Heritage Partnership Agreements
24. The potential to provide greater clarity
regarding the scope of works that would and would not require
consent for large complex sites in advance is potentially welcome.
This should allow strategic management of large sites without
the need to seek multiple consents over a period of many years.
Such agreements could be tailor-made for regeneration and growth
projects and/or include complex sites. Greater certainty could
be built into such projects with the prior consent of owners,
managers, developers, local authorities and English Heritage.
The expectation is that the introduction of these agreements will
help to change the culture of management enabling managers of
complicated sites to undertake their conservation commitments
and responsibilities in a more timely and efficient manner. This
will be a great advantage for complex sites that are owned by
the Trust but managed in a number of different ways. For example,
Dolaucothi Gold Mines, Carmarthenshire which has one part on a
99 year lease to the Forestry Commission, one part on an Agricultural
Act Tenancy (difficult to alter management), one part on a new
tenancy with lists of conservation clauses, one part in hand and
one part open to the public.
25. It appears, however, that the provisions
set out in the Bill limit the use of HPAs as a vehicle for granting
consent or waiving the need for repeated applications for certain
types of works. At present HPAs are intended to remove uncertainty
over what works require consent or not, so reducing unnecessary
bureaucracy for both the owner and the local planning authority.
It does not, however, give automatic class consent for certain
types of work as these will require another process to be signed
off (for which we await secondary legislation to determine who
is responsible). This is an important issue to raise as the introduction
of HPAs in the Bill is intended to be a significant tool to enable
more efficient management of historic sites. In management agreements
previously trialled by English Heritage as long ago as the mid
1990s (eg at Willis Faber Coroon in Ipswich) it found that they
never really took off because they do not grant consent in advance
and this is what would be the key in helping to manage complicated
sites effectively. In the Trust's experience, however, both English
Heritage and Cadw have worked with us to get the most of a management
agreement. For instance Cadw has already descheduled parts of
the mine at Dolaucothi to enable to us to get on with basic maintenance.
26. We welcome the subsection 3 of Clause
157 for local planning authorities (and later on English Heritage,
Secretary of State and WAG) to have the power to make payments
to owners to facilitate the beneficial management of the asset
or assets covered by an HPA. We do question what the start up
costs of Heritage Partnership Agreements may be and also highlight
the importance of having the necessary skills and competencies
to develop and manage what is an intrinsically more complex process.
(b) Settings
27. The Trust fully supports the extra emphasis
in Clauses 155 and 156 of the Draft Bill on the protection of
the settings of heritage assets. Given the Government's aim of
putting the historic environment at the heart of an effective
land use planning system, however, we believe the emerging legislation
should take an even stronger stance on settings protection. Our
experience is that various properties, including major houses
and the associated historic parks and gardens on the English Heritage
Register,have been significantly affected, or are currently threatened,
by development within their settings.
28. As the settings include views out over
the wider landscape, it is the planning system that has to be
relied upon for protection. National Trust examples include Sheringham
Park, Montacute, Saltram, Hardwick and Belton. All of these properties
are held in perpetuity by the Trust on behalf of the nation and
the protection of their settings is an important aspect of the
continued conservation of the houses, parks and gardens. Negotiations
are proceeding with the local planning authorities where these
properties are situated with a view to obtaining a step change
in the level of protection, by defining the settings on the Proposals
Maps associated with the emerging Local Development Frameworks.
29. These negotiations are based on the
success in the Amber Valley Local Plan 2006 where the setting
of Kedleston Hall and Park was defined on the Proposals Map. This
outcome has meant that the protection no longer relies on the
vague impression of "setting" in a written policy. The
National Trust strongly feels that the emerging legislation should
provide that local planning authorities should be required to
define the settings of major heritage assets within Local Development
Frameworks. Such a change would be a significant step towards
ensuring that the historic environment is truly embedded at the
heart of the land use planning system.
30. Through our experience we also understand
the difficulties of defining what a setting is. For example, settings
are a grey area for how we establish the protection of Scheduled
Ancient Monuments. There are cost implications and expertise required
to understand settings of historic parks and gardens. We believe
there is a need for guidance for local authorities on how settings
may be defined in LDFs, using tools such as landscape characterisation.
The National Trust will be looking to support the English Heritage
work on assessing settings.
(c) Marine historic environment
31. As the Committee is no doubt aware there
is a concurrent pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Marine Bill
taking place. This presents an opportunity to ensure that measures
being implemented within marine legislation are integrated with
the new heritage protection regime and vice versa. The
Committee may wish to consider how the new marine heritage designation
will sit within the marine planning system proposed in the Marine
Bill and how the historic marine sites fit within the proposed
new system of Marine Conservation Zones. We are greatly disappointed
that the Marine Bill does not consider the role of the historic
environment within its conservation objectives which may compromise
the heritage interest of sites. Any Marine Policy Statement which
is developed should reference the marine historic environment
measures introduced through the Heritage Bill.
32. There needs to be greater clarity of
the role of English Heritage or Welsh Ministers in the protection
and licensing system for the marine environment. At present the
Marine Bill objectives will be to deliver only biodiversity objectives
within the Marine Conservation Zones. Therefore, there is the
potential for conflict between licensing decisions for a particular
site if they overlap. Greater clarity within both Bills for this
process would ensure the system was less open to confusion and
delay. In addition, to ensure a working relationship between those
responsible for the more general marine environment licensing
system and those whose priority is the marine historic environment
is in place, English Heritage and Cadw needs to be adequately
resourced and empowered to deliver this role.
33. The Heritage Bill does not adequately
answer the challenges of intertidal ownership and management.
We are concerned that the complicated nature of sites which stretch
from foreshore to underwater means that many are subject to two
different regulatory authorities. Consequently, such agreements
could prove difficult to negotiate in practice. We believe, therefore,
that where this situation occurs, additional resources and support
will be necessary to develop the appropriate structures post-designation
to make the integration of the two parallel systems (terrestrial
and marine) work. This will be the test for integrating marine
and terrestrial planning and will be helped by strong marine historic
environment policies within the Marine Planning Statement
34. In terms of the specific proposals,
we were disappointed to see that the proposal within the Heritage
White Paper to extend designation of marine heritage beyond that
of sea wrecks to include types of sites such as ancient landscape
did not come to fruition. One benefit of this approach is that
the evidence held in submerged landscapes can tell us more about
the potential impact of sea level rise and climate change.
35. We were also disappointed to see that
the proposal within the White Paper for a flexible consents system
to respond to the impact of climate change on our coastline is
also absent. The National Trust recognises and aims to work with
the processes of coastal change wherever we can, but also recognises
this can put the historic environment at risk. The National Trust
policy on coastal management therefore states that "archaeological
and heritage assets will be conserved and enhanced where such
an approach is consistent with the impacts and trends of coastal
change. Recording, excavation, adaptation or relocation of heritage
assets will be undertaken where in situ conservation is not possible".
The National Trust has 50-60 hot spots which are threatened by
coastal change, for example at Porlock Bay and Cuckmere, which
have significant historic environment and listed assets.
36. Whilst we appreciate that the Heritage
Bill only provides for the high level legislation necessary to
change the designation and licensing system as it currently stands,
we feel that there is a need to ensure that there is enough room
for manoeuvre and sufficient safeguards to allow the marine historic
environment designation and licensing system to respond to the
dynamics of a changing coastline. This approach must by necessity
also include those listed heritage structures and open spaces
on the coastline which may be vulnerable to coastal change. Procedures
for conservation and exit strategies may need to come though secondary
legislation and guidance. We would also recommend that designated
sites include an assessment of risk from natural and accelerated
(ie anthropogenic) coastal processes
37. English Heritage's Rapid Coastal Zone
Assessment Surveys should be able to help pinpoint where the priority
areas are for these exist strategies, are taking place around
the coast but they are expensive. The Select Committee may wish
to examine where this thinking is being developed and whether
there is the potential for pilot studies. We have already been
in conversation with English Heritage about the potential of using
Plymouth and Milford Haven in a Welsh context.
ESTIMATE OF
COSTS AND
BENEFITS SET
OUT IN
THE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
38. For heritage to be at the heart of the
planning system it needs to have the continuing skills and resources
to maintain it there. We are deeply concerned that the proposed
reforms will fail if they are not backed with measures to provide
the extra capacity, skills and resources essential to delivery
in both local authorities and English Heritage. Those who have
been tasked with delivering the new system need significant additional
resources and to develop their skills and competencies. We believe
the Impact Assessment (IA) of resources required to implement
the new measures underestimates the financial impact of the changes.
It identifies that the main impact of the new legislation will
fall on English Heritage. English Heritage had identified the
costs of implementation of HPR as around £11 million but
secured only half this sum, after efficiency savings, in the CSR.
39. This is not reflected in the Impact
Assessment and the implications of this for English Heritage are
uncertain after 2010. It has identified limited resources which
are said to be sufficient to support preparatory work over the
next three years. However the funding made available for the new
registration will not cover the need to modernise the half a million
designations backlog. This will have implications for the efficiency
and adequate response to any contested appeals or consents. We
understand that English Heritage will be undertaking a consultation
on how tit will go forward on a detailed programme for implementation
2009-11 with a fund of £7.5 million. Our concern is that
the additional funding needed to meet the shortfall will be found
from elsewhere in English Heritage and the opportunity cost for
these other areas of its responsibilities will be great. The critical
time, when additional resources are needed for implementation,
will be in the next Spending Review period, covering the years
2011-14. The Committee may find it useful to examine what funding
will be necessary and how this may be delivered.
40. Significant additional resources also
need to be committed to local authorities. The new responsibilities
for administering all Historic Asset Consents, developing Heritage
Partnership Agreements for large sites, and the statutory status
to assemble and maintain a new system of the Historic Environment
Records (HER) will be very significant. In our view it is an impossible
task for local authorities without upfront and ongoing support.
In particular there are costs associated with the training and
capacity building (including recruitment of conservation officers)
of staff needed to ensure familiarisation with a new heritage
protection system. Upgrading the HERs will have resource implications
as currently most HERs are greatly stretched, frequently starved
of resources and threatened by the emergence of new Unitary Authorities.
The HERs, as envisaged by the Heritage White Paper, will not work
unless there is a major increase in funding. There is an urgent
need to review what these full costs will entail for local authorities.
This should build on the only estimate so far available from DCMS
regarding the costs of the devolution of responsibility for scheduled
monument consent (estimated to be around £400,000 pa from
2010/11 assuming that planning authorities will use in house and
out sourced conservation expertise).
41. Despite the statutory obligation to
maintain HERs there are concerns that this will be a weak spot
and funding is already limited. For example in the South West
central funding for local authorities will rise at an annual rate
of only 0.9% per year in real terms, which raises doubts about
the ability to find the resources to implement heritage protection
reform. Whilst we welcome the commitment from DCMS to fund any
new burdens on local authorities either itself or through English
Heritage, it is vital that any extra resources that are committed
to local authorities are there only to deliver the heritage protection
reform and for DCMS/DCLG to ensure they don't disappear into local
authorities general funds. There are precedents for this, such
as the Planning Delivery Grant.
42. How the Welsh Assembly Government intends
to fund these changes is a further source of concern and there
is no indication that there are plans to provide any additional
resources. In Wales, HERs are maintained by four Archaeological
Trusts, which whilst badly funded still manage to do an excellent
job that is greatly admired throughout the sector. The legislation
makes provision for different arrangements in Wales but as there
is still considerable ambiguity we would like to see a clear statement
that the legislation and appropriate levels of funding will actively
support the Welsh system.
STAFFING AND
SKILLS LEVELS
NEEDED FOR
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE
PROVISIONS IN
THE DRAFT
BILL
43. Whilst we welcome DCMS stating that
they will meet the additional burdens of the legislation this
does not address the pressing need to plan for long term delivery
of the new reforms. The greater emphasis being placed on the role
of local authorities in the absence of measures to address the
huge variations in local historic environment services is striking.
This is illustrated in the Atkins Report, which concludes that
improving standards and consistency will be an enormous task.
We work closely with local authorities and English Heritage and
the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) through Cadw on issues relevant
to Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments across the country
and are very aware of the pressures on those organisations and
their resource issues. To give just two examples—it took
12 months to receive listed building consent for works at Dinefwr
in Wales and more then two years to mend a wall which was becoming
an increasing health and safety problem at a property in North
Cornwall.
44. The greatest single skills shortage
with local authorities is the provision of specialist conservation
services. We are already starting from an existing position which
is far from perfect and there is already limited capacity within
local authorities to manage the current system. Recent figures
indicate that 20% of local authorities have no specialist service
and a further 30% rely on one full or part time member of staff.
Of note too is the dismantling of a number of local authorities
archaeological departments. North Hampshire has axed all archaeological
teams whilst there are fears regarding the impact of unitary authorities.
For example, Northumberland County Council is about to go unitary,
and the loss of conservation officers currently in district councils,,
means that the unitary authority will have to spread less expertise
more thinly (covering a vast geographical area), and there is
real concern about how services can be delivered, particularly
given the additional responsibility to be imposed on local authorities
in terms of determining consent applications. Without a statutory
requirement for local planning authorities to maintain both archaeological
and conservation services there is no guarantee that local authorities
will have the staff on the ground necessary to undertake the work
required. This is becoming increasingly more pressing as many
conservation officers are now reaching retirement age.
45. In addition, although listed building
consents may be handled in a timely manner, the conservation officers
lack status in the local planning authority and have limited influence
when it comes to strategic matters. For example, in Wales the
conservation officers are often overworked and without status
resulting in delays in addressing listed building consents. In
contrast the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts provide a good archaeological
service and have service level agreements with most of the Welsh
Unitary Authorities and local planning authorities to support
this. There is provision in the Bill to allow planning authorities
to delegate responsibilities to other bodies and we are given
to understand that this will be used to ensure the work currently
carried out by the Archaeological Trusts will continue. In Wales
our major concern is how consent for building work will be improved
and we would wish to see the same types of service level agreements
put in place between the WAG and the local authorities to encourage
delivery—a similar practice could be implemented in England.
46. The role of conservation and archaeological
officers in local authorities is crucial to the success of the
White Paper and there is an unassailable case for providing them
with a better career structure, enhanced status and training.
The new approach will also require strengthened skills in community
involvement and participation. There needs to be a clear commitment
to taking action in this area if the sector is to have confidence
in the review, and it needs to be a very visible part of any announcement.
This means not just money, vital though this is, but also a properly
thought out investment strategy in the skills, guidance, training
and capacity building for local authorities, professionals and
heritage organisations required, and in the partnerships to deliver
these.
47. One way forward might be through an
initiative which animates a national debate about the skills,
knowledge and experience needed and draws up recommendations which
would go forward as a package with any legislative proposals.
We recommend that DCMS works with organisations such as the Academy
of Sustainable Communities and Improvement and Development Agency
and strengthens the role of HELM as a training provider.
Annex
OMISSIONS FROM THE BILL
The Draft Bill provides enabling powers in several
areas where at present there is no detail about the arrangements.
These will be set out in regulations and orders to be made by
statutory instrument under the Bill, or subject to detailed guidance
to be issued by the national authority (English Heritage, the
Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers). At present there is no
indication whether these will emerge before or after passage of
the Bill. It would be helpful for the Committee to use the pre-legislative
scrutiny to explore thinking around a number of the areas covered
by the Bill.
Selection criteria for "special interest"
(Clauses 4 and 49)
We understand these will be consulted upon soon.
There has always been confusion about the interpretation of "curtilage"
and it would be good to have this clarified. We also hope this
clause is used to protect the setting of buildings and archaeological
sites.
Class Consent Orders to be made by the Secretary
of State and Welsh Ministers (Clause 93)
We welcome the implication that legislation
will address abuse of the current system but ask for further clarification
as to when in future class consent orders will be issued. In our
mind these should only be issued under exceptional circumstances.
We hope that under this the protection of vulnerable archaeological
sites under agricultural land will be protected from ploughing.
Regulations about procedures in handling applications
for Historic Asset Consent (Clause 103)
We note that this clause gives the Secretary
of State and Welsh Ministers powers to make regulations in the
future that will affect applications for HAC. As it stands this
reads as if it might be possible to reduce the potential benefits
of the proposed system—for instance if it gets too difficult
or expensive to administer.
June 2008
| 
