The Heritage Alliance issued the following response to The Penfold Review of non-planning consents on 10 February:
Mr A Penfold
Penfold Review of Non-Planning Consents
Department for Business Innovation and Skills
Email: penfoldreview@bis.gsi.gov.uk
10 February 2010
Dear Mr Penfold
The Heritage Alliance brings together 75 non government organisations concerned with heritage in England representing interests from specialist advisers, practitioners and managers, volunteers and owners, to national funding bodies and local building preservation trusts. Much of the historic environment is cared for – supported, managed or owned – by these organisations. They and their members – from local civic societies to the national amenity societies with statutory consultee status – work with the planning regime and have firsthand and longstanding experience of listed building and conservation area consents, one of the areas of your Review.
The Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies is responding separately – all seven societies are members of The Heritage Alliance but they have a special interest in that there is a legal obligation on Local Planning Authorities to notify these specialist societies of listed building applications that involve demolition, or alteration with an element of demolition.
This response is submitted on behalf of the heritage NGOs whether statutory or non statutory consultees and is drawn up following a joint meeting of our Spatial Planning Advocacy Group with the Joint Committee. Dr Gill Chitty, Head of Conservation at the Council for British Archaeology, has also been interviewed by your team on our behalf as have other membership organisations, giving you considerable detail. You may hear from others following a note on the Review in our ebulletin encouraging heritage NGOs to make their views known.
First we set out why these non-planning consents exist. The justification for listed building consent and conservation area consent is to address the market failure that occurs between the desire of an owner to develop a property as they see fit and the public benefit derived from maintaining the character and significance of our historic assets and areas.
The historic environment makes a vital contribution to economic prosperity on a local and national basis, with the UK cultural heritage sector contributing around £1bn GVA to the UK economy each year . It provides the public with a range of social, educational and leisure facilities that are also crucial to the vitality of the UK’s valuable tourist industry and to the many small to medium enterprises that rely on it. Although such factors are not dealt with in the planning system, the impact of development may have significant repercussions. The existence of reasonable safeguards in the form of heritage consents is therefore fundamental in maintaining what is a significant contribution to the UK economy.
Secondly we question the underlying assumption of the Review that the planning system is a barrier to investment. The HM government World Class Places http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/worldclassplaces specifically relates the quality of our environment to economic prosperity. A robust and consistently applied UK planning system puts longer term national values ahead of shorter term commercial gain. Heritage-led regeneration encourages investment and sustainable growth so, in enabling positive change by encouraging good design and quality place making, listed building and conservation area consents secure a valuable but finite resource.
The future of this resource depends on an efficient and consistently applied planning system, so we are all keen to reduce real and perceived administrative burdens of non-planning consents on the development industry, Local Planning Authorities and on the NGOs that care for their communities and historic environments. The Heritage Alliance and its members have been working for the past eight years on the Heritage Bill, and more recently on the PPS15 and on the Government Vision Statement for the Historic Environment.
Had the Bill been introduced in the Queen’s Speech in 2008 or even 2009, developers could be enjoying more certainty. Primary legislation was required to establish a formal right of appeal against a listing decision; for interim legal protection for historic places being considered for listing; and for easier access to designations and related registrations. Heritage Partnership Agreements would have eliminated the need for multiple consents for large or complex areas. More use of pre-application discussions and Certificates of Immunity would have reduced last minute delays. The legislation, from the Heritage White Paper to the draft Bill itself aimed to streamline the heritage protection regime and to make it more user friendly. It is in all our interests to ensure that new primary legislation gives us a heritage protection regime fit for the 21st century so we urge the government to make time for the Heritage Bill rather than use the phrase ‘as soon as parliamentary time allows’.
We welcomed this opportunity to set out our key points and would be glad to take part in subsequent discussions.
Yours sincerely
Kate Pugh
Chief Executive
The Heritage Alliance
