Memorandum submitted by the Society for
the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB)
1. INTRODUCTION
The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings
was founded in 1877. It is the oldest of the National Amenity
Societies and has special expertise in conservation training and
repair techniques. It is a charity with approximately nine thousand
members, including building conservation professionals and homeowners.
The Society was pleased to be involved in discussions
preceding publication of the draft Heritage Protection Bill. We
have read the published draft with great care and interest. Some
issues within, such as new marine heritage legislation, are beyond
the scope of our work (which is chiefly related to historic buildings
and sites). Where the draft Bill affects our interests it contains
many proposals that are welcome to the SPAB. Although there is
much to commend in present heritage protection legislation, it
is complex, having evolved piecemeal over many years. Current
legislation would benefit from some streamlining provided there
is—as Ministers have assured us—no lessening of protection.
However, we believe that, as important as the means of designation
are the conservation controls that follow, and the way in which
expert advice and guidance is provided.
After consideration of the draft Bill, the Impact
Assessment, and the secondary guidance that has been produced
so far, the Society has the following comments and suggestions.
We hope that these can be considered by the Culture, Media and
Sport Committee, and by government as the Bill's form is finalised.
2. GENERAL POINTS
2.1 Heritage Vision
We are disappointed that the draft Bill does
not yet carry a statement from DCMS emphasizing the vital contribution
that the historic environment makes to our culture, to regeneration,
and to the tourist industry. The Bill provides a valuable opportunity
for this point to be made on the sector's behalf, and we hope
that DCMS will make this statement for government, when the final
version is published.
2.2 Resources and transition
Effective operation of the new system seems
dependent on revised designation descriptions, which define such
matters as "special interest" and the extent of curtilage.
If resources were available to ensure a full designation resurvey
(particularly of England where this has not occurred on a comprehensive,
national basis for a quarter of a century) we would have more
confidence that the transition between the old system and the
new could occur smoothly, with limited risk of public confusion.
However, as things stand, there seems no prospect that resurvey
work will occur at anything other than a modest pace over a very
lengthy period. This risks the creation of a dual system of heritage
protection which could potentially be more confusing than present
arrangements. This is not a failing of the Bill but of the limited
new resources apparently available for its implementation. It
is possible that publication of the proposed transitional arrangements
will help to allay these fears—we hope so.
The new system places greater emphasis on the
role of local planning authorities. To carry out their expanded
role in heritage protection it seems vital that each has an experienced
conservation officer or conservation team. At present many councils
do not employ a conservation officer, and indications are that
the number employed overall is decreasing. It is crucial, in our
view, that central government ensures that conservation officers
are in place, throughout the country, if the Bill's proposals
are to be effectively implemented. We do not believe that English
Heritage can do this work adequately within its existing resources.
It is welcome that DCMS seems prepared to foot
the Bill for local authority work required to set up Historic
Environment Records (HERs), but is this an unlimited future commitment
to fund their management? Also, what is to happen in Wales?
2.3 Position of the National Amenity Societies
Notifications to the National Amenity Societies
(of proposals for new designations, de-Registration, Certificates
of No Intention to Register (CNIRs), and HPAs, etc) will increase
as a consequence of the Bill. We are dismayed that the Impact
Assessment says that resourcing implications for the National
Amenity Societies can be disregarded since this work occurs at
our own expense and discretion. The SPAB's casework is currently
at capacity and we have no spare resources to take on extra work
without dropping other casework. If the new consultation arrangements
are to be of any value, those formally engaged with it must be
in a position to carry out their intended roles.
Rather curiously, while the draft Bill specifically
mentions that the National Amenity Societies must be notified
in the case of new designations and a number of other proposals
(eg 29(3)(d)), it does not state specifically that we must continue
to be notified where an application proposes demolition of a protected
structure. This is our principal, current statutory role in the
planning system. We understand that there is no intention to change
our status, and that we would be mentioned in secondary guidance,
but we would welcome the assurance provided by the mentioning
of our present role in new primary legislation.
2.4 Building Maintenance
The Society has long championed effective, regular
maintenance as the best (and cheapest) way to look after historic
buildings. We currently hold National Maintenance Week each year,
and we also run the Faith in Maintenance project (supported by
HLF, EH and others). We are disappointed, therefore, that the
opportunity has not been taken, within new primary legislation,
to encourage preventative maintenance. At present, there is no
statutory obligation on owners requiring them to maintain protected
buildings, or incentives to persuade them to carry out such works.
While the Bill includes the possibility of insisting on Preservation
Works for heritage structures, this would simply be a successor
to existing Urgent Works and Repairs notices for listed buildings,
which have normally been used only when buildings have reached
an advanced state of decay.
3. DETAILED POINTS
3.1 "Special Interest"
Attempting to define more clearly the "special
interest" of a building, at the time of designation, has
benefits in terms of the understanding of the structure and in
controlling works. It also has some potential problems. Inevitably,
views on the significance of any heritage structure—its
"special interest"—will change over time. Given
that the review of designation descriptions is unlikely to occur
with any frequency, it is probable that the defined "special
interest" of a building will become out of date. When listed
buildings were last resurveyed on a national basis, in the early
1980s, it is unlikely that as much importance was attached to
19th and 20th century elements as would be the case today. These
list descriptions, though, were then informative rather than prescriptive.
They left open the possibility that special interest and significance
could be reinterpreted over time. The new designations, being
more prescriptive, will have greater risk of out-datedness. Only
by ensuring that new resources are available for regular review
of all designations can this difficulty be overcome.
3.2 Access to HERs and the Register
We welcome the fact that public access, via
the internet, is proposed in the case of the Register and HERs.
The restriction on public access to English Heritage's LBOnline
has been, in our view, very regrettable. In Wales list descriptions
are not currently available on line. We hope that this problem
can be resolved as a result of the Bill, or sooner.
We think that it would be valuable if HERs could
include— or be linked to—records of the planning history
of designated sites in addition to information about historic
interest. We welcome the encouragement of local designations and
their inclusion within HERs.
3.3 Preservation Works
We are pleased that Preservation Works are to
be possible wherever a sound case exists for intervention, and
not just where they have become urgently necessary. We also welcome
the (apparent) intention to extend Preservation Works and enforcement
powers to structures that were formerly scheduled ancient monuments.
The lack of urgent works powers for scheduled monuments has been
a major failing of current legislation. However, we remain concerned
by the difficulty faced in persuading councils to take action.
We hope that secondary guidance, when published, will assist in
this.
3.4 Ecclesiastical Exemption
The SPAB has long accepted that the ecclesiastical
exemption has some benefits for historic buildings—particularly
in terms of the greater potential for the control of repair works.
However, we have always believed it vital that the exemption is
regularly reviewed. We are concerned, therefore, that the published
secondary guidance on the exemption seems to endorse it without
a firm plan for regular review. We also have some concern that
exemption would be extended to the boundary of an ecclesiastical
site, and to registered structures within, without exempt bodies
having any formal Preservation Works powers or procedures equivalent
to those of the secular system.
3.5 Designations Appeal Panel
A more open designations process, with a right
of appeal, seems in the public interest. We hope there will be
a National Amenity Society right to appoint a representative to
sit on the new designations appeals panel. We think it regrettable
that Wales is not to have a panel of this kind.
3.6 Provisional Registration
Building Preservation Notices are currently
little used by councils, due to fears about compensation claims.
With a more open designation system, interim protection, while
a designation proposal is being considered, is much needed. We
therefore welcome the proposal to introduce Provisional Registration.
Our one concern is that, with greater openness already being operated
by English Heritage during the current listing process, there
will be a period of some years, in advance of new legislation,
when heritage structures under consideration for designation will
be left vulnerable. Further consideration might be given to the
issue of whether it is appropriate for English Heritage and DCMS
to use its newly introduced and more open consultation procedures
in the absence of legislation that will provide Provisional Registration.
3.7 Expert Advice
We welcome the fact that Local Planning Authorities
will not be able to determine applications for Heritage Asset
Consent without having sought "expert advice" (106(5)).
We are concerned, though, that they may be considered to have
fulfilled this obligation merely by notifying bodies such as the
National Amenity Societies. At present, we and the other National
Amenity Societies only see a proportion of listed building applications
(those involving an element of demolition). To do more would be
impossible for us within existing resources (and no new resources
have been offered to us). To fulfil their obligation to obtain
"expert advice" it seems unavoidable that councils will
have to have in-house, specialist conservation officers. This
requires additional staff which many councils are very reluctant
to fund. This does not seem to have been adequately considered
in the Impact Assessment.
3.8 Heritage Protection Agreements
Although we have been involved in discussions,
details of planned arrangements for Heritage Protection Agreements—particularly
in relation to sites enjoying ecclesiastical exemption—remain
somewhat unclear. We understand that the National Amenity Societies
may have a role as "scrutineers" but the exact nature
of this role is as yet unclear. Without a firm understanding of
the proposed system, we cannot feel fully confident of it. This
is particularly so if, as we understand at present, arrangements
for the use of "scrutineers" may be left to the discretion
of individual dioceses. It seems that HPAs for the exempt bodies
may also be based on an enhanced quinquennial inspection. There
needs to be certainty that church architects are prepared to undertake
this work, and that church bodies can afford the fees required
for enhanced inspections.
3.9 Machinery in Mills
We welcome the clear statement that machinery
will be considered part of any mill which is a designated structure.
Uncertainty about this matter, among local planning authorities
and owners, has been of concern to the SPAB's Mills Section for
many years.
3.10 Conservation Areas
So far, it is clear only that abolition of conservation
area controls is proposed, making demolition works within them
instead subject to planning permission. The Society has some reservations
about the loss of a special conservation area control, although
we accept that its removal will somewhat simplify the present
system. We hope for further assurance that the effects of the
unfortunate Shimizu and South Lakeland legal rulings will be reversed.
Government quite properly began consideration of how the negative
effects of the Shimizu ruling might be ameliorated as long ago
as the mid 1990s, but as yet amendments have not been put in place.
3.11 World Heritage Sites
We are pleased that World Heritage Sites are
to appear on the Register. However, it is disappointing that,
according to the explanatory notes accompanying the draft Bill
"The fact of such inclusion will not subject them to any
protection regime and is simply a record of their existence."
We hope that more can be done, through secondary guidance, to
help the effective protection of World Heritage Sites.
3.12 PPG15/Welsh Circular 61/96
Details of the successor to PPG15: Planning
and the Historic Environment and Welsh Circular 61/96 have not
yet been published. Both have proved valuable documents and the
Society considers it extremely important that the heritage sector
has high level published policy guidance, from government, as
successors.
June 2008
| 
