Memorandum submitted by the Garden History
Society
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 The Garden History Society, the national
amenity society for historic designed landscapes and a statutory
consultee, has given careful consideration to the Draft Bill.
The Society welcomes aspects of the Draft Bill.
These include:
— The Draft Bill's holistic approach
to the historic environment.
— The statutory duty placed on English
Heritage to designate historic assets including heritage open
space.
— The duty placed on planning authorities
to consider the impact of proposed development on heritage open
space and its setting.
— The potential for land forming the
setting of registered heritage open space to be included in heritage
protection agreements.
— The statutory duty placed on local
planning authorities to establish and maintain Historic Environment
Records including lists of locally significant heritage open space.
— The proposed expansion of the criteria
for the designation of conservation areas to include "artistic"
significance.
1.2 The Society has significant concerns
over certain areas of the Draft Bill.
These include:
— The implications and appropriateness
of the term "heritage open space".
— The definition of "registerable
open space" in England and the different treatment of land
in Wales.
— The appropriateness of the use of
"certificates of no intention to register" in relation
to designed landscapes.
— The absence of a consent regime for
heritage open spaces.
1.3 The Society has significant concerns
over the resource implications for heritage bodies, statutory
consultees and national amenity societies contained in the implementation
of the provisions of the Draft Bill.
2.0 THE GARDEN
HISTORY SOCIETY
2.1 The Garden History Society is the national
amenity society for the study and conservation of historic designed
landscapes[4].
2.2 Since 1995[5]
the Society has been a Statutory Consultee on planning applications
affecting all sites included by English Heritage on the Register
of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England[6]
(regardless of Grade).
2.3 The Society has a Council of Management
which includes among its members many leading experts and practitioners
in the fields of garden history and historic landscape conservation.
Members of its Conservation Committee have similar expertise and
advise the Society's four professional Conservation Officers.
2.4 The Society has been involved fully
in the process of Heritage Protection Review and responded to
the Heritage White Paper (2007). The Society has also participated
fully in discussions of the reform process with other members
of the Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies.
2.5 This Memorandum has been written by
the Society's Principal Conservation Officer who was employed
between 1998 and 2003 as a Consultant Register Inspector at English
Heritage and therefore has direct experience of issues relating
to the designation of historic designed landscapes in England.
3.0 ASPECTS OF
THE DRAFT
BILL WELCOMED
BY THE
GARDEN HISTORY
SOCIETY
3.1 The philosophical approach of the Draft
Bill
3.1.1 The Society supports the holistic
approach to the historic environment embodied in the Draft Bill
[Part 1 Chapter1] and welcomes the move to a unified Heritage
Register for England and Wales.
The Society considers that this will encourage
owners, planners and those responsible for formulating conservation
policies for historic places to adopt a similarly holistic approach,
thus avoiding intervention or change which, while beneficial to
one aspect of the historic environment, may be prejudicial to
another equally significant historic asset such as a designed
landscape setting for a listed building.
3.1.2 The Society notes that when a site
is assessed for possible inclusion in the Heritage Register as
"heritage open space" it will also be assessed for its
potential architectural or archaeological interest. We understand,
therefore, that garden or landscape structures and garden archaeology
will receive greater attention within the designation process
than has been the case hitherto.
— While this is welcome in principle,
we draw attention to the need for a requisite number of appropriately
qualified officers to be retained by English Heritage, and the
cost implications entailed.
3.1.3 We have a concern that where a site
proposed for inclusion on the Heritage Register as heritage open
space is already partly designated as a heritage structure, there
may be a temptation for English Heritage not to add a further
layer of national designation, despite this being contrary to
what we understand to be the spirit of the provisions of the Draft
Bill.
We already have experience of such a case at
Saltram, Devon:
— here we supported proposals for the
inclusion of the Boringdon Arch (Grade II* Listed and sited above
an unrelated Scheduled Ancient Monument) and an associated plantation,
a focal point of the 18th century designed landscape, to be included
within the Grade II* registered landscape. In a Report dated 28
November 2007, the English Heritage Adviser stated that although
the Arch (designed by Robert Adam) "fully complies with English
Heritage's principles" [on designed landscape designation],
"it is neither practical nor necessary to add another layer
of national designation to it by including it in the Register"[7].
— If applied more widely, this case
would present a worrying precedent for the marginalisation of
designed landscapes within the reformed designation system.
3.2 Statutory Duty to maintain a Heritage
Register including heritage open space
3.2.1 The Society notes that whereas under
the provisions of the National Heritage Act 1983-84[8],
English Heritage is empowered to compile a Register of Parks and
Gardens of Special Historic Interest, under the terms of the Draft
Bill [Part 1 Chapter 1 sections (1) and (3)] there will be a statutory
duty placed on English Heritage to compile and maintain a Heritage
Register which will, by definition, include nationally significant
historic designed landscapes.
The Society welcomes the removal of the element
of discretion allowed to English Heritage with regard to the designation
of historic designed landscapes under the existing designation
system, and its replacement with a statutory duty.
3.2.2 Placing a statutory duty upon English
Heritage to designate nationally significant historic designed
landscapes within the unified Heritage Register creates a limited,
but welcome degree of equality between historic designed landscapes
and other designated heritage assets which has been lacking under
the existing designation system.
3.3 Procedural changes
3.3.1 In principle the Society welcomes
the greater openness of the proposed designation system with consultation
during the designation (or amendment) process [Part 1 Chapter
2 section 10 (2) and (3); Part 1 Chapter 2 sections 21, 22] and
a right of appeal [Part 1 Chapter 2 sections 25-37].
— We consider, however, the Government
has not taken due account of the additional resources which will
be required by national amenity societies such as ours, or indeed
English Heritage, properly to implement these welcome changes.
3.4 Inclusion of registered sites on Land
Registry maps
3.4.1 The Society welcomes the proposed
demarcation of sites included on the Heritage Register on Land
Registry maps [Part 1 Chapter 5 section 82 (6)]. This simple measure
will ensure that designated historic designed landscapes will
be shown up along with other land charges during land searches,
thus avoiding a new owner being unaware of the heritage significance
of the property he or she has acquired.
3.5 Planning considerations and the setting
of registered sites
3.5.1 The Society welcomes the duty placed
on planning authorities to consider the impact of proposed development
on heritage structures and heritage open spaces and their respective
settings [Part 3 Chapter 1 section 155].
3.6 Heritage Partnership Agreements and the
setting of registered sites
3.6.1 We further welcome the recognition
in section 157 (1) Heritage partnership agreements that in terms
of conservation management of heritage sites, it may be desirable
to include within the management agreement land outside the designated
area but which forms an essential part of the setting of the designated
asset.
3.7 Conservation Areas
3.7.1 The Society notes the intention outlined
in para 278 (Notes) to broaden the criteria under which a local
authority may designate a conservation area to include special
archaeological and special artistic interest. We conclude that
in this context "artistic interest" can encompass designed
landscapes, and therefore this change is welcomed;
— Greater clarity in the wording of
the Bill might be helpful in this regard and avoid the potential
for future dispute.
3.8 Historic Environment Records
3.8.1 We welcome the statutory duty placed
on local planning authorities to create and maintain Historic
Environment Records, and the recognition within the Draft Bill
[Part 5, 215 (2)] that heritage assets of special local interest
should be included on the Historic Environment Record.
— We note, however, that as with the
proposed Conservation Area criteria, "artistic interest"
is used in an undefined way in relation to Historic Environment
Records, leaving open the possibility of dispute at public inquiry
as to whether a particular designed landscape has an appropriate
level of "artistic interest" to justify its inclusion
on the Historic Environment Record.
4.0 ASPECTS OF
THE DRAFT
BILL WHICH
CAUSE CONCERN
TO THE
GARDEN HISTORY
SOCIETY
4.1 Terminology: Heritage Open Space
4.1.1 After careful consideration, the Society
has concluded that the term "heritage open space" employed
in the Draft Bill is inappropriate and misleading.
We understand that in the quest for simplicity,
Government has sought to reduce the number of designation categories
and to amalgamate designed landscapes with historic battlefields,
presumably on the basis that these are both "spatial"
designations.
4.1.2 In relation to designation, the use
of the term "heritage open space" fails to recognise
that designed landscapes may be suitable for national designation
by reason of their special historic and aesthetic interest. It
is the fact that a "space" or place has been the subject
of human aesthetic intervention that makes it a potentially nationally
significant designed landscape; the space, whether open or not,
is in that sense incidental.
— The term "heritage open space"
is therefore inappropriate when applied to designed landscapes.
4.1.3 "Open space" is a term more
commonly applied to non-designed areas, utilitarian areas, or
areas of natural environment interest. Places such as village
greens, commons, downland or sports fields come to mind when the
phrase is applied. It is this latter sense in which "open
space" is understood in the planning system: PPG17 refers
to planning for open space, sport and recreation.
4.1.4 The term can imply a right of public
access to "open" space and may be confused with the
rights of access to the countryside conferred under the Countryside
and Rights of Way Act 2000.
— This is clearly undesirable in relation
to private property which has been the subject of national or
local designation.
4.1.5 At present the Welsh designation system
uses the phrase "Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special
Historic Interest", while Historic Scotland speaks of "Gardens
and Designed Landscapes".
— We consider that the phrase presently
used in England, "Historic Parks and Gardens" is too
prescriptive; and submit that the phrase "historic designed
landscapes" or "historic landscapes" would be much
preferable for use in the context of heritage designation.
4.2 Scope of "registerable open space"
as defined by the Draft Bill
4.2.1 The Draft Bill [Part 1 Chapter 2 section
3 (2), (3)] states that in England, a garden, park or a battlefield
may be a "registerable open space"; in Wales, by contrast,
any land is a registerable open space.
— We see no necessity for this difference
between England and Wales, and submit that it would be preferable
and more logical for all land in England to be a potentially "registerable
open space".
4.2.2 We consider restricting potentially
registerable open space in England to parks, gardens or battlefields
to be unduly and unreasonably prescriptive. Existing legislation
empowers English Heritage to compile a Register of "gardens
and other land considered by the organisation to be of special
historic interest"[9].
— The proposed wording of the Draft
Bill appears to draw back from this liberal vision in a way which
would preclude sensible and sensitive development of the understanding
of spatial designation over the next few decades.
The understanding of historic designed landscapes
has advanced greatly since the Register of Parks and Gardens was
first established in the mid-1980s, and indeed, the Register in
its present form includes many sites (such as cemeteries, urban
squares and walks, and institutional landscapes) which would probably
not be readily understood by the public in the conventional sense
of "parks" or "gardens".
4.2.3 We are aware that research is being
undertaken into other forms of designed landscape, examples of
which may in the future be considered to be of national significance
and therefore worthy of national designation. These include sites
such as retail landscapes, landscapes associated with transport
(highways or airports) and industry (power stations for example),
or commemorative landscapes such as those associated with crematoria.
— It appears likely that the proposed
wording of the Draft Bill [Part 1 Chapter 2 section 3 (2)] would
preclude the designation of such sites.
4.2.4 The key element which unites these
landscapes, and sets them apart from natural landscapes, cultural
landscapes or vernacular landscapes is that of design.
It is the interest and significance of the design
and its physical realisation which makes these sites of "special"
interest and potentially worthy of designation.
4.2.5 In order to avoid unnecessary prescription
being enshrined within the eventual Act, we submit that the words
"garden or park" should be removed from this clause
[Part 1 Chapter 2 section 3 (2)], and should be substituted by
the phrase "designed landscape".
4.3 Certificate of no intention to register:
open spaces
4.3.1 For similar reasons to those outlined
in para 4.2.3 above, we consider that progressive advances in
the understanding of designed landscapes and their relative significance
makes it dangerous for a heritage authority to grant a certificate
of no intention to register enduring for five years.
— To illustrate the point, the bulk
of cemeteries now included on the Register of Parks and Gardens
were added less than five years ago; the same is true of many
of the registered institutional landscapes. Ten years ago, public
parks were little recognised by the designation system.
These significant changes in understanding,
value and perception have come about rapidly and it is quite possible
that the existence of a certificate system would have precluded
the designation of nationally significant sites, not withstanding
the opportunities for consultation with appropriate persons outlined
in the Draft Bill [Part 1 Chapter 2 section 42].
4.4 Heritage asset consent
4.4.1 The Society has recorded above (para
3.1.1) its welcome in principle for the proposed unified approach
to designation of the historic environment.
— However, we are perturbed that a
unified approach has not been adopted to the control and consent
regime for heritage assets.
4.4.2 Part 2 Chapter 1—Requirements
for Heritage Asset Consent deals exclusively with works in relation
to registered heritage structures; yet some of the specified works,
such as flooding or tipping [Part 2 Chapter 1 section 86 (2) (d)]
clearly have the potential to have a significantly adverse impact
on registered heritage open space which is not covered by the
requirement for consent as set out in the Draft Bill.
4.4.3 If the omission of heritage open space
from this Chapter of the Draft Bill [Part 2 Chapter 1] is intentional,
it appears to us to be perverse and illogical for the reasons
set out in paras 4.4.4 and 4.4.5;
We submit that Government should reconsider
this aspect of the Draft Bill.
4.4.4 Failure to provide a uniform approach
to requirement for consent across the range of heritage assets
included in the unified Register is illogical and threatens to
undermine the Government's stated objective of creating a more
consistent, logical and generally intelligible system of heritage
protection by perpetuating the different levels of statutory control
and protection found in the existing system.
4.4.5 At a philosophical level the differentiation
between heritage structures and heritage open spaces in terms
of consent and control may send a message to owners, planners
and others that in some way nationally designated landscapes are
of secondary importance in relation to registered heritage structures.
Such a message, whether intended or not, would clearly contradict
the purpose of combining all heritage assets within a unified
Register.
4.5 Resource implications of implementation
of the provisions of the Draft Bill
4.5.1 It appears plain to us that implementation
of the provisions of the Draft Bill will entail a significant
increase in resources for a range of bodies.
— These will include: English Heritage,
local planning authorities, statutory consultees and national
amenity societies.
The Draft Bill places significant additional
duties and responsibilities on each of these bodies which cannot
reasonably be undertaken without an increase in resources from
central Government, on whose behalf the tasks will be undertaken.
We are not convinced, on the basis of the information
made available to date, that Government has fully understood the
resource implications of the changes proposed in the Draft Bill.
4.5.2 Without adequate additional resources
to enable national and local heritage bodies and others such as
statutory consultees properly to undertake additional duties such
as responding to consultations on proposed additions or amendments
to the Heritage Register, it is certain that the Government's
objectives for a reformed Heritage Protection system cannot be
met.
5.0 SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSION
5.1 The Garden History Society, in its role
as Statutory Consultee and national amenity society for historic
designed landscapes respectfully submits that in its consideration
of the Draft Heritage Protection Bill, the Committee should pay
particular attention to:
— The terminology employed by the Draft
Bill, and particularly the implications of the term "heritage
open space".
— The inconsistency of approach between
England and Wales in respect of the categories of land which may
be designated as heritage open space.
— The absence of a consistent control
and consent regime across the range of designated heritage assets.
— The significant resource implications
for heritage authorities, statutory consultees and national amenity
societies which would arise through the implementation of the
provisions of the Draft Bill.
June 2008
4 Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, para A.16: "The
Garden History Society was closely involved in setting up the
Register of Parks and Gardens, now maintained by English Heritage.
Its work, however, is analogous to that of the national amenity
societies...and it has more experience of dealing with planning
applications affecting parks and gardens than any other body." Back
5
Central Government Circular 9/95; Environment Circular 14/97;
Culture, Media and Sport Circular 1/97. Back
6
English Heritage, by contrast, is a Statutory Consultee in respect
only of sites included on the Register at Grade I or Grade II*. Back
7
English Heritage (Listing), Adviser's Report: Saltram, Plymouth
(UID 163608), 28 November 2007, p 6 Back
8
Section 8C of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monument Act
1953 (inserted by section 33 of, and paragraph 10 of Section 4
to, the National Heritage Act 1983-84. Back
9
English Heritage, Register Guidance Manual (1996), p 7-refers
to National Heritage Act 1983 as in note 5 above. Back
| 
