Memorandum submitted by British Property
Federation (BPF)
INTRODUCTION
1. The British Property Federation (BPF)
represents companies owning, managing and investing in property.
This includes a broad range of businesses comprising commercial
property owners, the financial institutions and pension funds,
corporate landlords, local private landlords, as well as all those
professions that support the industry.
2. We welcome the select committee's inquiry
into the draft Bill. In general, we support the reforms being
brought forward such as the introduction of a unified approach
to national designation to replace the separate regimes for listing
and the introduction of a single "heritage asset consent"
to replace the existing separate consent regimes for listed buildings
and scheduled monuments. However, we do have some concerns with
particular aspects of the Bill which are detailed below.
3. Our evidence is of a general nature,
representing the views of the commercial property industry. We
have seen the written evidence of the Country Land and Business
Association and fully endorse their detailed comments.
DETAIL
Skills and resources
4. The Department for Communities and Local
Government Committee is currently conducting its own inquiry into
planning skills to which the BPF submitted written and oral evidence.
There was a consensus amongst those who submitted evidence that
the planning system is suffering from a lack of skills and resources.
We are concerned that some of the changes suggested in the draft
Heritage Protection Bill will compound this problem. For example,
compiling the new Heritage Register and the new duty for local
planning authorities to create and maintain a Historic Environment
Record will have resource implications for conservation staff.
Whilst it will be fairly easy for such information to be recorded
when new designations are made, a much harder challenge will be
to update the existing entries as they move across to the new
system.
5. It seems highly unlikely that the Government
will significantly increase resources in the planning system and,
as a result, there will be insufficient qualified staff to administer
the new reforms. The outcome for owners of heritage buildings,
therefore, is likely to be increased costs and delays.
Request for registering
6. The Bill allows for anybody (including
those without a direct interest in the building, monument, land
etc) to request a heritage asset be listed, as is possible under
the existing system. It is important that clear guidance is provided
to ensure that this right is not abused and used by third parties
to unreasonably delay development. The Bill must strike the right
balance between ensuring transparency and fairness and the need
to establish an expeditious system which is not overly expensive.
English Heritage's "sift test"—the first hurdle
in an application for registering—should be robust. We support
the current approach outlined in the Bill, especially the ability
to reject a repeat application which contains no new significant
information and which was recently considered.
Archaeology
7. We understand English Heritage's discretion
as to whether to register a heritage asset will be removed as
a result of the Bill. This means, for example, that if an archaeological
site is of "special interest" English Heritage will
be obliged to register it. We are concerned about the ramifications
of this, as it could in theory lead to the registering of large
amounts of currently unscheduled archaeology. We are not aware
of a problem which necessitates this change. Our concern is that
it could result in costly surveys and excavations being required
unnecessarily. In our view, English Heritage should retain some
discretion as to whether an archaeological site or building should
be listed.
Conservation Areas
8. The Bill is likely to facilitate a review
of Conservation Area policy through the merger of Conservation
Area Consent with planning permission. This change has been inspired
by the case Shimizu (UK) Limited v Westminster City Council
(1997). The change will make the removal of parts of an unlisted
building in a Conservation Area subject to planning permission.
The BPF feel this would in many instances penalise responsible
property owners in these areas, adding extra burden and cost.
This change will also potentially lead to a flood of planning
applications being received by local planning authorities, and
as mentioned above in paragraphs 4 and 5, it is doubtful whether
authorities have sufficient resources to deal with the increased
workload.
9. Another proposed change relates to the
case South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for
the Environment (1992). We understand that the effect of this
case will be reversed meaning that change will not be permitted
in Conservation Areas unless it has a positive effect, where previously
a neutral effect was deemed to be acceptable. This change will
make a real difference to development proposals in Conservation
Areas creating a subjective hurdle which could potentially be
used as a mechanism to block development per se regardless of
its merits. It would be better for the government to issue guidance
stating that if a local planning authority believes a site or
section of a Conservation Area needs to be enhanced it should
refer to this in its local development framework. Such a process
would be both more targeted and democratic.
Appeals and Local Member Review Bodies
10. Following on from the Planning Bill,
the draft Heritage Protection Bill will allow Local Planning Authorities
(LPAs) to delegate many decisions to its officers, and abolish
the right of appeal, other than to a Local Member Review Body
(LMRB) from the same LPA. There is widespread opposition to the
concept of LMRBs; the fact that both initial decisions and appeals
will be dealt with by the same body will have a corrupting influence
on the planning and heritage protection systems and on public
faith in them. LMRBs should be removed from both the Planning
Bill and the draft Heritage Protection Bill and the traditional
right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate should remain.
Heritage Partnership Agreements
11. We welcome the introduction of Heritage
Partnership Agreements (HPAs). They should introduce greater flexibility
for owners and mangers of complex sites, and reduce the number
of consent applications for routine and repetitive works. However,
guidance should be clearly set out on the matters that can be
included in HPAs, the form that they should take and procedures
for entering into an HPA, to ensure that they can be implemented
without delay and uncertainty.
Online heritage portal
12. Clause 81 of the Bill provides for local
and national historic environment records to be made publicly
available. We understand that the intention is for this to be
done through a comprehensive and easily accessible online heritage
portal, containing information about registered heritage assets,
such as maps and photographic data.
13. The portal is an excellent idea and
will certainly aid those who are seeking to learn more about heritage.
However, if the portal allows unrestricted access to potentially
sensitive information about the location of valuable objects in
historic buildings, then it could become a handy tool to assist
criminal behaviour. There would potentially be an ability to search
for terms such as lead, statues etc and then find corresponding
maps and photographs. Careful consideration should be paid to
what information is publicly available and who should be able
to access it.
June 2008
| 
