Pps 15 Banbury Civic Society Response

Phil Weatherby Planning Systems Improvement Division Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

PPS 15 PLANNING FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT – Consultation Response of the Banbury Civic Society I am responding to this consultation in my capacity as Chairman of the Banbury Civic Society. I have worked in the heritage profession for over thirty years, formerly as an archaeologist and archaeological consultant, now as a Senior Historic Environment Consultant at RPS Plc, Europe’s largest planning and environmental consultancy with a staff of over 5500. I have structured our response as follows: A. General Overview B. Detailed comments on the text of the draft PPS C. Responses to the consultation questions.

A. General Overview The Banbury Civic Society welcomes in principle the replacement of PPG 15 and PPG16 in line with the principles of set out in the Heritage Protection Bill. We do recognise a real value in the objectives of brevity and clarity in planning guidance. In this instance we find that the insistence on a given word count would result in a real reduction in the protection for our heritage. This is because the PPS:

• Undervalues heritage and the need to protect it; and • Provides insufficient indication of the policy and procedures to be adopted in assessing:

i. the potential of the historic environment in terms of both resource and opportunity ii. what constitutes harm to the public interests within it iii. how to weigh the balance between competing public benefits in ways that secure conservation of the historic environment, and its place in sustainable development. We currently reject the attempt to place much critical guidance on the interpretation of the PPS in a supplementary Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide. This is because the PPS itself only claims that its policies ‘may also be material, depending

on the particular circumstances of the case, to decisions on individual planning applications’. If the PPS itself may only be material, it is most unclear what weight, if any, will be afforded to the Practice Guide. It also risks a situation where most decision–makers will read the PPS, yet never read the Practice Guide. Given the comprehensive and robust nature of PPGs 15 and 16, we regard the prospect of the separate publication of the PPS and the Practice Guide with very great alarm indeed, most especially if the new PPS were to emerge in anything like its current form. Unfortunately, if the Government’s intention had been to provide a robust framework for all classes of heritage asset that will not reduce existing levels of heritage protection, we find that, without significant and substantial changes, the PPS is not fit for purpose, will result in significantly less protection for the historic environment and that its implementation will cause significant and irreversible damage to the fabric of our historic environment. Rather than give clarity, the Draft PPS is incredibly vague and open to a massive amount of local interpretation when compared to the very detailed and robust PPGs 15 and 16. This will keep barristers and consultants busy for years and will result in ‘Shimizu’-like High Court judgements that will undermine the intended principles within the PPS until such time as they can be overturned by further primary legislation. Fundamentally, there is no clear vision statement, unlike PPG 15 which starts: “It is fundamental to the Government's policies for environmental stewardship that there should be effective protection for all aspects of the historic environment. The physical survivals of our past are to be valued and protected for their own sake, as a central part of our cultural heritage and our sense of national identity. They are an irreplaceable record which contributes, through formal education and in many other ways, to our understanding of both the present and the past.”). The PPS encourages the view that heritage is an asset that can be traded off against (unspecified) 'community' and 'climate change' benefits, without a key vision statement, without detailed guidance and without the current concept that the historic environment should not be ‘sacrificed for short-term and often illusory gains’. It would be naïve not to believe that developers and planners will take the PPS as a green light to trade historic assets to illusory ‘community benefits’ such as maximising housing density, planning gain, additional Council Tax receipts and the prospect of securing of community facilities that may well be impossible to sustain or which may even never be built. Similarly, the PPS encourages householders to deface fragile historic buildings with ill-considered plastic double glazing and will encourage developers and planners to gut or demolish historic buildings on the basis of spurious claims that replacement development will have a better thermal performance than existing buildings. Terms like ‘place-making’ have replaced 'cherished local scene', and ‘significance’ has replaced 'historic and architectural interest' and 'character and appearance'. The new terms are unsupported by primary legislation, which will lead to confusion and the potential of legal challenge. It must be remembered that most LPAs have been instructed by the Government’s Planning Inspectors not to ‘save’ the historic environment policies in their Local Plans, on the basis that these policies only reflect what is already in the PPGs. Unless LPAs chose to adopt PPGs 15 and 16 as Supplementary Planning Documents, they will be left in a policy vacuum where the PPS fails to provide relevant guidance on the interpretation of existing statutory

instruments (notably the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act). The PPS takes the view that the lower the significance of a historic asset, the lower the presumption in favour of its retention. While it is superficially attractive to require that a developer retain significant heritage assets or aspects of an asset that can be agreed to be significant, our experience is that a determined developer will go to great lengths to diminish the significance of a listed building by arguing, for example, that later alterations or additions have reduced its significance. We welcome the aspiration that the local community should be consulted on applications affecting historic assets. The PPS nevertheless fails to adequately address or clarify the mechanics of community inclusion. What is the development threshold for local consultation? Who are ‘the local community’ and how, and at what stage, of the development process will they be engaged? Immediate neighbours may well welcome the redevelopment of a neglected historic building, whereas the building may hold considerable importance to the wider local community, local amenity societies and special interest groups. Lack of guidance here may lead to targeted consultation to produce a desired response. What weight, if any, will local views be afforded in the development control process, especially with nondesignated buildings and historic landscape features that may be viewed as ‘low significance’ simply due to their lack of formal designation? We welcome the aspiration to make better use of Historic Environment Records. Currently most Historic Environment Records are currently completely inadequate for the demands proposed. The PPS effectively limits the definition of heritage to what is on the HER. This disregards the majority of heritage assets, including in many cases locally listed buildings. It also disregards the reality that the majority of new archaeological discoveries are made on site with high potential but which have been subject to no previous formal investigation and which are thus not recorded on the relevant Historic Environment Record. We are also highly concerned that the PPS has no regard to the proven economic potential of the historic environment Finally, as the PPS dramatically increases the scope of what constitutes historic assets well beyond national designations, we are also highly concerned that the PPS fails to provide robust coverage of the resource implications of the proposed changes. This is not only with regard to the provision of specialist conservation officers, but also with regard to the provision of expert officers within LPAs capable of providing informed advice on archaeology, historic gardens, battlefields, wrecks and historic landscape. The lack of any guidance in the PPS about how and when statutory consultees need be engaged is also a major concern. The principal issues that we think need to be addressed are to:

• Ensure that our Historic Environment is fully recognised for its intrinsic

sustainability, inherent values, and the contribution it makes to the wellbeing and future of this country.

• Ensure that the Historic Environment is fully supported and enabled to continue to contribution proactively to the well-being of this country.

• Ensure that this, and any other relevant document, is fully fit for purpose. That it does in no way undermine the already fallible system currently in place – and that any replacement document shows a clear, coherent and recognisable benefit to the management, curation, and where necessary ‘protection’ of what is a finite and irreplaceable resource.

• Use terminology that is more compatible with the primary legislation tying

'significance' more closely to the statutory expressions of ‘special interest’, ‘amenity’, ‘character’, and ‘appearance’.

• Reinforce heritage as a prime component of sustainability.

• Make a stronger connexion with other planning objectives, such as placemaking, regeneration and community development.

• Clarify the need for LPAs to recognise the holistic benefits from the sustainable planning based management and conservation of the historic environment for future generations, including: - social, health, community, economic and environmental benefits - clarification that heritage is not an obstruction to climate change, but a key tool in its mitigation. • Provide detailed best practice guidance on the full range of heritage topics. In the absence of such radical changes, the draft PPS will be unfit for purpose as it will:

• Reduce protection for the historic environment by not valuing it appropriately, and eliminating wider considerations beyond cultural ‘significance’).

• Complicate the system it is trying to clarify and so alienate users. • Add costs and uncertainty, both for users and LPAs (such as costs attached to training and undefined service standards for HERs,).

• Fail to capitalise on its potential as a driver for industry. Heritage works annually contribute £5 billion to the construction industry, providing sustainable and low carbon developments, local jobs and other benefits.

B. Detailed Comments on the Text of the Draft PPS Introduction Para 2) As PPG 15 and PPG 16 are currently highly material considerations to ‘decisions on individual planning applications’, it is a matter of significant concern to read that ‘the final PPS may also be material, depending on the particular circumstances of the case, to decisions on individual planning applications’. If the PPS is mot material to planning applications, what will be? With LPAs having been instructed not to ‘save’ existing heritage policies in their current Local Plans, this appears to leave a potentially huge policy

vacuum once PPG 15 and 16 are superseded. Surely this paragraph should read ‘the final PPS will also be material to decisions on individual planning applications affecting designated and undesignated heritage assets’ Para 4) This para excludes heritage assets that are designated due to their character and appearance. As a result, the PPS would appear to be incompatible with the Town and Country Planning Act and the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, which specifically identify Conservation Areas as ‘Areas whose character or appearance are desirable to conserve or enhance’. As far as we can make out, the PPS is so incompatible with the current relevant Acts that it cannot stand in Law. We would suggest changing the relevant part of this para to: ‘Those parts of the historic environment that have significance because of their character or appearance, or their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest are called heritage assets…' The Government’s Objectives Para 5) It is a very grave concern that the primary reason stated in the Draft PPS for conserving heritage assets is ‘for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations’. This is a far cry from the present introduction to PPG 15, which states that ‘It is fundamental to the Government's policies for environmental stewardship that there should be effective protection for all aspects of the historic environment. The physical survivals of our past are to be valued and protected for their own sake, as a central part of our cultural heritage and our sense of national identity. They are an irreplaceable record which contributes, through formal education and in many other ways, to our understanding of both the present and the past (1.1.)… The Government has committed itself to the concept of sustainable development - of not sacrificing what future generations will value for the sake of short-term and often illusory gains… This commitment has particular relevance to the preservation of the historic environment, which by its nature is irreplaceable (1.3.)… Most historic buildings… are a valuable material resource…: the avoidable loss of fabric through neglect is a waste of economic as well as environmental resources (1.4.). It is of course impossible to predict what ‘future generations’ will value in terms of ‘quality of life’. Such things clearly change from generation to generation. Thousands of fine buildings, parks and gardens were sacrificed in the 1960s to shopping centres, car parks and urban road schemes in the 1960s in the interests of (what was then perceived as) improved ‘quality of life’. It is very alarming that the PPS gives no weight to the irreplacability of heritage, nor to its intrinsic value. It is instead apparently part of a lifestyle choice where the contribution of heritage to ‘quality of life’ may be weighed against the contribution to ‘quality of life’ of, say, a proposed bowling alley. We believe that the PPS should still state that ‘It is fundamental to the Government's policies for environmental stewardship that there should be effective protection for all aspects of the historic environment. The physical survivals of our past are to be valued and protected for their own sake, as a central part of our cultural heritage and our sense of national identity. They are an irreplaceable record which contributes, through formal education and in many other ways, to our understanding of both the present and the past’.

PLAN MAKING POLICIES Policy HE1. Evidence base for plan-making 1.1 -1.3 With regard to the information contained in Historic Environment Records (HERs), the words ‘proportionate and sufficient to inform adequately the relevant planning processes’ appear highly subjective and open to interpretation. With the reliance placed on HERs in the Draft PPS, the proposed system seems unworkable until HERs have comprehensive and adequate records, made to a consistent standard. At present the Oxfordshire HER (for example) has no entries for locally listed buildings (or other buildings of local historic or architectural interest), there are no Extensive Urban Surveys of historic towns, there are no comprehensive Buildings at Risk (BAR) surveys for Grade II Listed Buildings and too few defined Archaeological Priority Zones to inform developers or planners ‘where new heritage assets (including archaeology) may be discovered, including through development’. Many conservation areas do not have adopted character appraisals or management plans. Few villages have Village Plans. In Oxfordshire and elsewhere, the HER is principally an archaeological database, very weak on historic buildings and almost impossibly weak on industrial, post-medieval and modern heritage. On the face of it this is a great aspiration in principle, but a very long way off in practice. The words ‘proportionate and sufficient to inform adequately the relevant planning processes’ must be much more fully defined if HERs are to be the first port of call in identifying potential heritage constraints. Accompanying guidance will be needed to ensure consistent standards in identifying and registering heritage assets of all types. In Policy HE 1.1, we would prefer to see reference to local authorities having ‘adequate information’, rather than unqualified ‘evidence’. In HE1.2 it would be accurate to say the information in HERs should be used as ‘the baseline from which to assess the extent, significance etc…’ of known assets. Policy HE2: Regional Planning Approach 2.1.2.3 These paragraphs seem inconsistent with the fact that some Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) (e.g. The South East Plan) are already drafted and adopted. Given that the Government’s opposition has made a manifesto pledge to abolish RSSs, should the PPS allow for this with a suitable caveat, such as ‘The character and significance of the historic environment in a region should inform the regional spatial strategy (RSS)1 or any replacement county or regional strategies…

Policy HE3: Local planning approach 3.1.3.2 These paras seem fine in principle, but are hostage to the words ;’Having assessed the evidence’. If the ‘evidence’ is that available from HERs, these paragraphs are compromised by the lack 1 References in this paragraph to the regional spatial strategy should be taken to refer to the regional strategy once the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill is enacted and brought into force. The latest version of the Bill can be found at http://services.parliament.uk.bills/

of consistency within HERs, which as seen previously, are often is wholly inadequate as any sort of comprehensive evidence base. 3.2

Para 3.2 should also include the creative contribution that historic character can bring to the design of new civic and public space and green infrastructure.

HE4 Heritage assets and sustainable development 4.1-4.2 The precognition of the principle that extant buildings contain ‘embodied energy’ in their materials is most welcome. There is concern that this paragraph may be used to justify the loss of historic buildings assets on the grounds that a replacement development may be more thermally efficient than an existing designated or undesignated structure. The replacement window may sieze on these paragraphs to claim that double-glazing is mandatory, even in listed buildings and conservation areas. Planners may use them to insist that plastic double-glazing should be a condition of the grant of planning consent on applications involving historic buildings. It would be helpful to the public, elected members and planning offices if the PPS could be more specific with regard to climate change. PPG 15 currently states: ‘It is usually impossible to install double-glazed units in existing frames or to replicate existing frames with new sealed units without making noticeable changes to the profiles of glazing bars, styles, and rails. The new glass in such units may also significantly alter the appearance of the window. Such changes are rarely acceptable in listed buildings. Weather stripping and draughtproofing are visually more innocuous changes as well as thermally efficient and cost-effective. Secondary glazing in a removable inner frame is another (C.50)). It would be helpful if the PPS could contain similar advice. It would also be helpful if the PPS could make it clear that historic buildings are often more energy efficient than many more modern buildings. With regard to the balance to be struck between heritage and climate change, it would be helpful if the PPS could state explicitly that 'It is likely that perceived gains in thermal efficiency provided by a replacement development would only justify the loss, or substantial loss, of a designated or undesignated heritage asset in the most exceptional of circumstances.’ HE5

Permitted development and article 4 directions 5.1

HE6

This paragraph appears to address whether article 4 directions should be removed. This seems to be at odds with the Bill, which encourages more use of Article 4 Directions. As not having Article 4 Directions is the ‘default’ position and as most conservation areas do not have Article 4 Directions, it would be more relevant if the first sentence read ‘Local planning authorities should consider whether allowing the exercise of permitted development rights (delete 'would') undermines the aims for the historic environment within the development plan or the general aims of conservation and enhancement set out in this planning policy statement. If so, …'

Monitoring indicators

HE6.1 Well written. No issues

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS HE7

Pre-application discussion and assessment

7.2

Much the majority of archaeological remains discovered during the course of development are on sites which were not registered on HERs, due to a lack of recent development activity on or near the site. Similarly, there are many hiostoric buildings of great historic or archaeological interest that are not recorded on HERs. Whether or not a building, landscape or archaeological site a site is on the HER, its archaeological interest will almost always be uncertain, most especially before a desk-based assessment or field evaluation has been carried out. In order that the archaeological interest of such assets is not lost without record during development activity, it would be helpful if para 7.2 stated ‘Where a development site includes heritage assets with an archaeological interest, or where there is reasonable grounds to consider that a site may have the potential for previously unrecorded heritage assets of archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to carry out appropriate desk-based or field evaluations as part of any application for consent.'… It is essential to make it explicit that 'archaeological interest' does not apply only to buried remains and Scheduled Monuments. As tools for establishing ‘significance’ desk-based research and intrusive evaluation are equally applicable to buildings and landscapes as they are to below-ground archaeological sites. Para 7.2 would benefit from the addition 'It should be recognised that 'archaeological interest' is not restricted to buried remains and Scheduled Monuments. The above provisions regarding desk-based assessment and evaluation are thus equally relevant to applications affecting historic buildings and landscapes.'

HE9

Policy principles guiding the determination of applications for development relating to all heritage assets

9.2

With regard to LPA’s seeking appropriate expert advice to inform decision-making relating to heritage assets, it is stated that this may come from 'in-house experts, experts available through agreement with other authorities, or consultants, complemented by specialist national organisations and local amenity societies'. With the exception of ‘consultants’, these are all third parties, with no financial interest. Consultants, in contrast, would either be paid by the LPA or the applicant. Both, particularly the latter, may thus have a professional interest in providing evidence that is potentially biased. The sentence appears to imply that a heritage statement provided by an applicant’s consultants may be regarded as sufficient expertise to allow the determination of an application, even where no other views have been sought in the interests of balance. We would suggest that this paragraph should end: ‘Expertise provided by an applicant’s consultants alone should not be viewed as being adequate to inform decision-making’.

9.3 Para 9.3 is welcome recognition that communities may have views on the particular significance of a local heritage asset which might not be reflected in

expert and documented evidence. Experience shows that failure to recognise this at the earliest (master planning and pre-application) stage can result in delays and time consuming renegotiation during the application process. This can often arise in relation to appreciation of the significance of setting and differing perceptions of what is significant. More supporting guidance in this area will be essential and a reference in Policy HE7 is also desirable. In relation to public engagement, we believe that more opportunity for public and educational access to the process of investigation and discovery can bring significant dividends both for development, in demonstrating directly the investment in local heritage, and for creating more informed and knowledgeable communities. We would like to see this aspect developed in the Practice Guide and an appropriate reference to the principle included in the PPS. There is a lack of clarity in the PPS as to what constitutes ‘the local community’. Immediate neighbours may have a very different view of, for example a blighted building, than the wider local community. The significance of specialised assets (e.g. industrial remains) may be better understood by a regional industrial archaeological society, than it may be by the ‘local community in its narrowest sense. We might suggest that ‘local community’ might be expanded to ‘the wider local community and relevant special interest groups’. 9.6

We cannot see why ‘new developments (need only be) designed in a way that respects their setting and reinforces the distinctiveness of heritage assets they stand alongside' 'where reasonably practicable'. This leaves far too much scope for Interpretation of what constitutes 'practicable'. We are also concerned at the exclusion of local distinctiveness from the list. We believe that this para should read 'Unless there are exceptional circumstances in terms of public benefit or climate change, local planning authorities should aim to ensure that new developments are designed in a way that respects their setting and reinforces the distinctiveness of heritage assets they stand alongside, in terms of scale, height, massing, alignment, local-distinctiveness and use of materials. In doing so, local planning authorities should, in line with PPS 1, take care to avoid stifling innovation and undermining investment in sustainable development.

9.7-9.8 We have very significant concerns about these paragraphs as, without additional guidance or checks and balances, they appear to leave the door open for all kinds of damaging applications to be justified for ill-founded, short-term and often Illusory benefits (e.g. the community gain of intensification of housing density, an increased number of households paying council tax and 'planning gain', or claims that a new development will be more thermally efficient than an existing historic building. 9.8(ii) Currently (Under PPG 15) the loss or substantial alteration of a listed building can only be justified subject to ‘the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use’, including ‘the offer of the unrestricted freehold of

the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition’ (PPG15, 3.19(ii)). This caveat has resulted in the retention and reuse of many historic assets in the past and has been essential to effective development control. We would suggest this caveat be retained, changing HE9.8(ii) to: ‘Local planning authorities should not accept material harm to or removal of significance in relation to a heritage asset unless: (ii) the heritage asset impedes all reasonable uses of the site, all possible efforts have been made to market the unrestricted freehold of the asset to a new owner at a realistic price reflecting the asset’s condition, there is clear evidence that no viable use of the site can be found in the medium term that will enable the retention of the asset’s significance and that conservation through grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is not possible (the offer of a lease only, or the imposition of restrictive covenants, would normally reduce the chances of finding a new use for the building); 9.8(iii)PPG 15 currently requires that the loss or substantial loss of a listed building ' would produce substantial benefits for the community which would decisively outweigh the loss resulting from demolition’. We would suggest that 9.8(iii) be amended to reflect the current guidance thus: ‘ (iii) it can be decisively demonstrated that the material harm to or removal of significance would produce substantial social, economic and environmental benefits to the community (including mitigating climate change) that will be delivered by the proposed development Policy HE10 Additional policy principles guiding the consideration of applications for development related to designated heritage assets (Surely these considerations also apply to undesignated heritage assets, as these may have equal significance to designated assets. We would suggest the removal of the word 'designated'. HE10.2 This paragraph currently states that 'Material loss of heritage assets of the highest significance… should be wholly exceptional'. PPG 15 and the 'Planning Practice Guide - Living Draft' state that material loss would be 'almost inconceivable' . We believe that this is a more appropriate wording. To conform with the Planning Practice Guide, we feel that this paragraph should read: ''Material loss of heritage assets of the highest significance… should be almost inconceivable' Currently the use of the term 'wholly exceptional' implies that the loss of Grade II buildings and heritage assets of less than the highest significance would be regarded as being more acceptable. PPG 15 Is more explicit, stating that 'The destruction of historic buildings is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or of failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses for them or to incorporate them into new development’. To conform with the Planning Practice Guide and PPG 15, we feel that this paragraph should read: ''Material loss of heritage assets

of the highest significance… should be almost inconceivable'. The destruction of heritage assets is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or of failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses for them or to incorporate them into new development’. HE10.3 As per 9.8(ii), this should read: 'Local planning authorities considering applications for development related to designated heritage assets should be particularly alert to policy 9.8(ii) which sets out the requirement for evidence that alternative ownership or uses for the asset have been explored. To be confident that no appropriate and viable use of the asset can be found, local planning authorities should require evidence that other potential owners or users of the site have been sought through appropriate marketing of the unrestricted freehold of the asset to a new owner at a realistic price reflecting the asset’s condition and that reasonable endeavours have been made to seek grant funding for the asset’s conservation and to find charitable or public authorities who may be willing to take on the asset.'

Policy HE13: Policy principles guiding the recording of information related to heritage assets HE13.3 The requirement for publication and deposit of records with the relevant HER is a welcome provision in HE13.3. However, the long-term care of archaeological archives and collections derived from development-led investigations remains an unresolved issue where local museum / record office resources are often inadequate or simply not available. Principles to address this deficit should be addressed more firmly in the policies. ANNEX 1.

TERMINOLOGY

Archaeological interest In the definition of ‘archaeological interest’, it needs to be explicit that buildings and landscapes possess archaeological interest. We would suggest amending this paragraph to read: 'An interest in carrying out an expert investigation at some point in the future into the evidence a place, building or landscape may hold of past human activity. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them. These remains are part of a record of the past that begins with traces of early humans and continues to be created and destroyed'.

Heritage asset The definition of a ‘heritage asset’ should include ‘area’ and ‘landscape’ as well as building, monument, site etc.

Historic Environment

The definition of ‘historic environment’ would benefit from a fuller definition to encompass townscape and urban characteristics. We would suggest that Annex 1 should include a definition of Statutory consultees for each class of asset, with an appropriate reference to Circular 1 / 2001 in the case of listed buildings.

C. Responses to the Questions posed in the Consultation Paper 1. Does the PPS strike the right balance between advocating the conservation of what is important and enabling change? No. Policy HE9.8iii is being read as being a 'developer's charter' and that the presumption in favour of retention/preservation is not sufficiently emphasised here as a fundamental principle. Much greater clarity is needed about the balancing of total or partial loss of significance against 'community benefit' and 'climate change'. Appropriate checks and balances need to be introduced if heritage assets are to be protected from applicants or LPAs trading the loss of assets against planning gain or promises of community facilities that may not prove possible to sustain. On a lesser level, applicants may argue for the insertion of inappropriate double glazing in the interests of climate change, notwithstanding that the carbon debt of new windows (with a 30 year life) will take 100 years to pay back when compared to properly maintained and draughtproofed traditional windows. Policy HE10.2 should include Grade II listed buildings as well as grade I and II* in order to maintain an equivalent level of protection to that provided under PPG15. The implication that the loss of grade II buildings is not an exceptional matter would be highly damaging. The PPS fails to recognise the role that heritage has in facilitating change. In particular, there is little recognition of how historic areas have delivered regeneration and economic development, especially in failing areas. Indeed, the PPS’s assertion that economic development involving heritage is mainly about leisure and recreation demonstrates a serious lack of awareness of how towns, cities and rural areas have regenerated in the past few decades. The historic environment is a sustainable resource that can be exploited in many fashions:

•

mitigating climate change through regeneration, maintenance and repair of existing fabric which retains embodies energy and reduces energy input.

•

stimulating low-carbon and localised economic development especially through supporting local communities and small businesses

•

enhancing social cohesion through providing opportunities for low-wage, marginalised and hard to reach communities to grow and develop, unhindered by economic limitations generation by of capital return more usually associated with new development The PPS fails to emphasise the importance of multi-disciplinary skills in managing and delivering change, as recognized in international conservation

standards. Fundamentally, there appears to be a misconception that the historic environment and its conservation is a barrier to improvement or change. This is clearly inappropriate. The document fails to explain how heritage helps places to adapt to modern needs and contributes to wider planning objectives. In particular the ways in which heritage reconciles the needs of economy, community and environment should be emphasised. 2. By adopting a single spectrum approach to historic assets, does the PPS take proper account of any differences between types of asset (e.g. are archaeological assets adequately covered)? No. Most archaeological assets would be highly vulnerable, simply because so many are, by their very nature unknown or their significance is poorly understood. Given the number of exciting archaeological discoveries that are made on previously unknown sites, it would be very regrettable indeed if the PPS led to a situation where unknown archaeological remains, or sites of probable archaeological potential, cannot be accommodated within the development control process. Conservation Area designation is an important means of protecting historic areas and their significance, together with the character appraisal process which provides the basis for assessing that significance. In our view, this latter aspect and other spatial planning tools such as historic landscape and urban characterisation deserve more explanation in the Practice Guide and cross reference in the PPS, as the basis for assessing significance and informed decision making. The PPS also fails to recognise the myriad values of and pressures on historic buildings and areas, including utility values, environmental values and economic values. Historic buildings and areas are part of the infrastructure of modern living, accommodating a vast range of commercial, residential and other uses. This requires them to be treated in a fundamentally different way to monuments that cannot be used, or cultural resources that have no direct relevance to sustainable development. Monuments might more easily operate under ‘museum’-like protection as they have intrinsic educational, cultural and heritage value but may be incapable of productive use. By applying a single standard of cultural significance across the spectrum of historic assets– from the flint scatter to urban residential areas and cathedrals – the ‘single spectrum’ approach fails to register non-cultural values of more substantial HE assets effectively and significantly reduces protection available. The emphasis on significance is based on perceptions of heritage value alone, so excludes wider social, economic and environmental (sustainability) values that are exclusive to the built environment. We are concerned over the lack of mention to place-making and urban design in the context of a clear connection with PPS1. o manage the historic environment as a sustainable resource for the future, it should be closely integrated with wider placemaking considerations. This allows for the informed, expert and integrated consideration of significance. 3. In doing so, does the PPS take appropriate account of the implications of the European Landscape Convention, and of the cultural dimensions of landscapes designated as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty?

No. Although this aspect has some coverage in the Practice Guide and is alluded to in the PPS definition of setting, the policy principle should also be aligned with the ELC definition: ‘"Landscape" means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors’. By focussing on cultural values above the other benefits it brings as a resource, the PPS fails to recognise the breadth of values that landscape has in delivering wider sustainable development aims. The guidance is rather vague about parks and gardens, battlefields and historic landscape generally. Most counties now have Historic Landscape Characterisations where the whole county is characterised. As such, the entire landscape is historic to a lesser or greater extent. Will heritage statements be required for all planning applications affecting the historic landscape? 4. Are the policies and principles set out in the PPS the key ones that underpin planning policy on the historic environment, or should others be included? No. Others should be included. The PPS draws heavily on English Heritage’s Conservation Principles, which have a narrow focus on cultural values operating under the term ‘Heritage Values’. It has been an important and valuable exercise to unpick heritage values, but we do not subscribe to the application of heritage values as a means of judging values or underpinning a methodology for determining change. To secure sustainable management of the HE as a resource, as demanded in the introduction to the draft PPS, the emphasis needs to be on the utility values of heritage in delivering social, economic aims and environmental benefits, and appropriate and expert recognition of these benefits must be registered within the process. It also needs to address sustainability value and society. We would like to see additional and reinforced policy on:

•

Appropriate skills sets (professional skills, elected member skills, technical skills), reflecting the holistic benefits and multi-disciplinary needs of the historic environment.

•

More substantial application of wider values of heritage, including embodied energy, whole lifecycles, biodiversity, health, supporting communities, supporting choice and diversity, and creating sustainable places.

•

Providing robust and accessible information, recognising that Historic Environment Records will not be able to cater effectively for the needs of communities, decision makers and interest groups at the time of the PPS's proposed inception. • Encouragement for informed capacity building and local community engagement.

•

Emphasis on place making and urban design. In particular, there needs to be recognition of how historic areas, developed as part of a lowcarbon economy continue to contribute to inclusive and sustainable development with their mixed use, proper streets, pedestrian permeability, sustainable urban forms, etc. • Pro-active improvement and enhancement of the physical character of the historic environment, including investment.

•

Economic development, including how heritage acts as a catalyst of investment in failing areas and how refurbishments can accommodate business, social enterprise and creative industries. • The importance of the public realm, including the importance of spaces in supporting social and economic activities. •

Local designations, including local lists.

These policies are central to fulfilling the Government’s stated objectives of applying principles of sustainable development to proposals involving the historic environment and addressing the ambitions laid out in the Heritage Protection Reform White Paper. 5. Do you agree that it is the “significance” of a historic asset that we are trying to conserve? Yes and no. In my professional work I routinely assess the relative significance of the individual components of buildings and landscapes. The concept of relative significance is an extremely valuable tool in informed conservation management, for example in a Conservation Management Plan (CMP). Significance of impact / effect it is also an essential tool in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Nevertheless the term ‘significance’ means very different things in CMPs and EIAs and the use of the term here to mean ‘The value of a place to this and future generations because of its heritage interest’ is highly subjective, excludes intrinsic value and is highly confusing due to the conflicts with established and competing definitions of the term used in Conservation Management Plans and Environmental Impact Assessments. This will prove very confusing to nonspecialist planning officers and elected members. If the term ‘significance’ is more widely equated with ‘special interest’ or ‘character’ it would have a wide reference, possibly to issues such as amenity values. But if a narrower interpretation of significance is interpreted as a variation of English Heritage’s ‘heritage values’, it is only one element of the spectrum of values to be considered. If we are to operate in line with the aspirations of government as laid out in the PPS introduction and in line with international conventions we are also trying to conserve the following:

•

Social value. In particular, older areas with lower rentals can support a range of community, third sector and commercial uses that would not be viable in comprehensively redeveloped centres. This is often due to lower rentals, made possible by the lack of burden of capital borrowing

•

Economic value. It needs to be recognized that the loss of a heritage asset is also an economic loss. The role that heritage has in allowing towns, cities and rural areas to transform and regenerate is a key value.

•

Environmental value. Heritage contributes to sustainability in numerous ways, including conserving embodied energy, avoiding landfill, supporting bio-diversity, encouraging use of local materials, investing in skilled labour rather than new materials, supporting mixed use, conserving sustainable urban patterns and design features, etc.

6. Does the PPS comply with devolutionary principles with regard to what is expected at regional and local levels?

No. The PPS should emphasise the need for local, skilled teams of historic environment experts with strong links to local communities and networks, the benefits and values of which are recognised in the extensive research by EH and others underpinning the values of locally managed and democratic systems. There also needs to be far greater emphasis on capacity building and community engagement as a means to local empowerment. This should include policy on local designations, including conservation areas and local lists. It is not adequate or appropriate to rely solely on Historic Environment Records (HERs) to provide this capacity building. There needs also to be substantial modification to the policy to ensure that communities and third parties are involved at the pre-application stage of development discussions. Otherwise, there is a risk of decisions pre-empting the open and democratic planning process. There needs to be policy on how locally-distinctive historic environments help to make local areas and regions more competitive and attractive to inward investment, and not simply a requirement to have regard to local distinctiveness. This requires an understanding of the relationship between quality of place and economic performance. To support and strengthen the policies in HE2, a clear cross reference is required between this policy and the content of regional strategies. The Draft Policy statement on Regional Strategies, also currently out for public consultation, states that a Regional Strategy’s policies and priorities should cover “Priorities for the protection, enhancement and access to the built and natural environment, including biodiversity” (4.9, point 7.). To ensure the integration of policy, the historic environment should be explicitly included there. 7. Does the PPS strike the right balance between the objectives of conserving what is significant in the historic environment and mitigating the effects of climate change? No. The document fundamentally fails to recognise how historic buildings and areas contribute to sustainable development. The PPS focuses on energy use in buildings rather than looking at sustainability in a holistic manner. Other planning guidance does not adequately respond to issues such as the overall energy value of historic materials or the potential of the historic environment to support and encourage biodiversity, sustainable communities and enhance quality of life. There is thus insufficient emphasis on the key part the heritage plays in sustainable development in paragraph 5. To reduce this simply to tourism and regeneration understates the essential wider case. The historic environment does and should play an important part in the achievement of the Government’s goals for sustainable development and for adaptation and mitigation action on climate change. This should be uppermost among the objectives for planning for the historic environment which has a central role in effective adaptation for climate change. Policy HE4 emphasises rightly that re-use and renewal of heritage assets and historic infrastructure has a major role to play in achieving sustainable places to live and work; historic landscapes and their management by traditional, lowcarbon methods also provide valuable green and blue infrastructure. We believe there is scope to signpost this much more clearly in the Government objectives and spell it out more comprehensively.

Policy HE 4 makes a clear, strong statement of principle about the important, mutually beneficial, relationship between heritage assets and sustainable development which we firmly support. This positive policy is weakened by a tendency elsewhere in the policies to add a ‘climate change caveat’ in the case of potential conflicts with loss of heritage significance (e.g. HE2.3, HE9.5, HE11.1). Given policy HE 4 and the expected publication of a separate PPS on climate change, which will set out the wider principles that will apply across the board, the constant ‘climate change’ mantra appears to overemphasise the potential for conflict. We would like to see the drafting improved to remove this unhelpful repetition. Missing elements that are not provided adequately in wider planning policy, include: •

Consideration of conserving embodied energy and avoiding landfill and further investment of energy in redevelopment.

•

Channelling investment into skilled labour rather than material resources.

•

Ways in which older areas, developed incrementally, support mixed use and tenure.

•

Ways in which older areas, developed as part of a low carbon economy, have intrinsically sustainable characteristics, including streets with active frontages, good pedestrian permeability and connections to surrounding facilities, high density, party-wall construction, etc.

•

Avoiding the use of environmentally destructive materials, such as uPVC.

•

Failure in policy to recognise the real carbon emissions attached to ‘zero carbon’ new build when comparing the benefits of promoting new development against managing existing fabric (such as that in the PPS on Climate Change).

8. Does the PPS make it clear to decision-makers what they should do, and where they have more flexibility? Are there any risks or benefits you would like to highlight for the historic environment sector? No. The principles that are set out to guide decision-makers in policies HE9.5 and HE9.6 are potentially ambiguous. There appears to be a weakening of protection - or at least the potential for exploiting this - in wording which implies that what is ‘feasible’ or ‘reasonably practical’ should be acceptable in determining applications despite a general principle of ‘presumption in favour of conservation’ in HE10.1. The wording could be improved by simply taking out ‘feasible’ and ‘where reasonably practical’. The terminology of the PPS as currently drafted also relates poorly to primary legislation (and relevant case law) and to other planning policy statements, such as PPS1. Whilst this may not be a strict legal issue, it could create uncertainty, conflict, delay and poorer quality outcomes, not only for decision-makers, but for users and communities. In particular there needs to be substantial clarification of meaning through the list of definitions, and their relation to higher statute and subordinate guidance. There needs to be far greater clarity of direction for the need for appropriate specialist skills in managing change to heritage and developing options for intervention. Such skills are not just about understanding ‘significance’, as implied in the PPS, but require a capacity to mediate between the demands of

accommodating significance and the need to encourage improvement to secure the future of the heritage asset. Without such skills, poor-quality, uninformed and over-restrictive decisions are likely. The real risk is that the narrow focus on ‘significance’ will compromise the ability of decision makers to promote the wider social, economic and environmental values of the historic environment. There also seems to be substantial confusion over the distinction between a ‘developer’ as a ‘polluter’ of the HE who must be ‘charged’ for the damage they cause through the creation of a record (as a narrow, mitigation process in conservation) and the improver as owner who is investing in the historic environment – through care, repair, improvement or enhancement – ensuring that the assets will survive for future generations. Imposing on the latter a regime that is based on ‘polluter pays’ principle will alienate the many positive users and advocates of the benefits of caring for the HE, It may also encourage less positive owners to avoid proper consent processes in improvements where they are faced with an hidden tax on their actions as ‘developers’. There is a conflict, and lack of clarity in this that needs significant reconsideration. 9. The draft PPS highlights the importance of ensuring that adequate information and evidence bases are available, so that the historic environment and the significance of heritage assets are fully taken into account in plan-making and decision-taking. At the same time we are concerned to ensure that information requirements are proportionate and do not cause unnecessary delays. Are you content we have the balance right? If not how would you like to see our policy adjusted? (Policies HE8 and HE9 are particularly relevant to this question.) No. Whilst we welcome some policies in the area, such as HE8.1 as modified, we are concerned that the narrow focus on historic environment records fails to recognise the importance of a much wider range of factors that need to be considered in determining significance – however that is defined – and taking decisions. We are especially concerned that the emphasis on Historic Environment Records (HERs) could deflect attention from the need for decisions to be informed by specialist advice. The absence of specialist advice leads to poor decisions and often to unnecessary conflict and delay. Also, there is a risk that channelling resources into producing records will divert capacity from important activities, such as, supporting owners, informing decisions, policy and plan making, developing partnerships and pro-active regeneration and enhancement initiatives. The PPS should be placing equal or greater emphasis on these factors. The failure to recognise the importance of consulting non-HER information resources in the determination of significance is not acceptable when this PPS standard is being applied to the management of buildings, especially undesignated buildings, as these are grossly under-represented on HERs, which are, after all, still essentially archaeological databases. Other resources such as local archives, museums, libraries, history sources, amenity societies and civic trusts, as well as on-line resources, might well contain significantly more relevant information for assessing significance in an application. This must be recognised at the heart of the PPS at this time, even if that situation will change over its lifetime. Identifying significance is not simply about accumulation of information but involves the skilled interpretation of that

information. We are not confident that the specialist evidence required by this clause is likely to be wholly available from Historic Environment Records as they currently exist. 10. In your opinion is the PPS a document that will remain relevant for at least the next 20 years? Do you see other developments on the horizon that have implications for the policies set out in the PPS? No. It cannot remain sound for 20 years as it already takes a retrograde step from PPG 15 which affirmed the loss of historic fabric as an economic and environmental issue, and thereby a material consideration: ‘the avoidable loss of fabric through neglect is a waste of economic as well as environmental resources’ (PPG 15, 1.4). It is essential that the current PPS redress the imbalance in wider policy by supporting the widest benefits the conservation and management of the historic environment can bring to the mitigation of climate change. The sustainable management of the historic environment in the 21st century requires a more robust and rigorous response to its potential than that provided by current planning policy. For example, the supplementary PPS on Climate Change is almost entirely focused on new development and makes no substantial reference to embodied energies (the replacement of which generate some of the highest carbon emissions known), or whole life cycle costing. The current draft of PPS 15, with its focus largely on cultural significance, fails to acknowledge properly the environmental values of the historic environment – as embodied energy; as low carbon development resource, as a resource for minimal life cycle costings. These circumstances render the document already out of date. In addition, Policy HE2, for example, could be redundant within a year with some revision to Policy HE3 being required. Revision of other national policies, as part of the current programme of planning reform, will have implications and in the medium term we would expect some harmonisation of policies may be required for example in relation to the reform of regional strategies and the new core sustainability framework (defining environmental limits in relation to the historic environment), and other PPS revisions, such as for development management and climate change. Policy must as appropriate as it can be for the conditions and issues at the time it is issued and must be replaced as soon as circumstances dictate. 11. Do you agree with the conclusions of the consultation stage impact assessment? In particular, have we correctly identified and resourced any additional burdens for local planning authorities? Is the impact on owners/developers correctly identified and proportionate to their responsibilities? No. Local planning authorities have extremely variable access to specialist expertise for the historic environment. Some currently have almost none at all. We believe there will be additional costs arising for many of them to provide the services to support these clearly set-out policies, particularly those relating to providing historic environment information services and obtaining expert advice. HER costs as estimated appear to be lower than will be required to comply with accepted standards. We are concerned that the resource implications have not taken full account of:

•

The additional work associated with bringing Historic Environment Records to an acceptable standard across all heritage asset types.

•

The training needs of planning officers and elected members associated with interpretation of the new PPS and its new terminology.

•

Delays and legal costs created by the lack of clear guidance provided by the PPS and its non-conformity with current statutory instruments (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act and Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act). 12. Do you think that the policy draft PPS will have a differential impact, either positive or negative, on people, because of their gender, race or disability? If so how in your view should we respond? We particularly welcome the views of organisations and individuals with specific expertise in these areas. Not that we have identified (ENDS) 30th October 2009-10-30 Rob Kinchin-Smith (Chair) Banbury Civic Society 24 Springfield Avenue Banbury OX16 9HT