a policy planning statement for the historic environment an introduction to the text minster lovell...
TRANSCRIPT
A Policy Planning Statement for the Historic Environment
An introduction to the text
Minster Lovell Hall, Oxon
Context
• PPGs 15 (buildings) and 16 (archaeology) are very old – 1994 and 1990.
• Separation of archaeology from historic buildings/areas not helpful
• Part of the heritage protection reforms
• Heritage Protection Bill currently on hold
• Best practice is now significantly ahead of PPGs 15 and 16 – this is an opportunity to capture that and prepare for HP Bill at some point in the future
Notable changes - 1A single policy approach to all plan-making and decision-
making as it affects the historic environment (para 3)• Clear statement that it covers designated, non-
designated and not-capable-of-being designated - (para 4)
Royal William Yard, Plymouth
Concept of ‘Significance’• Heritage assets - have
historic, archaeological, architectural and/or artistic interest
• Interference with private rights of heritage assets justified because of their public value
• Public value = ‘significance’
• Conservation = preserving significance, not every last brick
See text box for more detail on ‘significance’ p2 of the Practice Guide
Anne Bronte’s grave, Scarborough
Govt Objectives
Govt’s laudable objectives for historic environment:
• Applying sustainable development,
• conserving and where appropriate enhancing
• Contributing to knowledge i.e. recording /capturing info as part of plan/decision-making, not just in advance of loss
Lydiard Church, Swindon
Plan Making Policies• HE1- more emphasis on
building evidence base• HE2+3 - choose the
right scale, identify the positive contribution heritage assets make, encourage active use, stimulus for new design
• HE4 - avoid climate change conflict
• HE5 - Article 4 where needed
• HE6 Monitoring - positive feedback loop to HE1
Scarborough
Development Management Process• HE7 - Pre-application
assessment:– Encouragement of
Heritage Partnership Agreements
• HE8 - Applicant should supply sufficient info to assess significance and LA should take account of expert and local views
Monkwearmouth Church
Development Management ProcessHE9 - The key policy
applies to ALL assets, not just designated. LAs should:
• Take into account all relevant info
• Use appropriate expert advice
• Seek local views• Consider enhancement,
long-term viability and place-making role
• Seek to minimise climate change mitigation conflicts
• Seek designs that respect existing
Dale St, Liverpool
Development Management Process9.7 Where proposal has a negative
impact on the significance of a heritage asset, through alteration or destruction, or through development within its setting, the LAs should weigh the public benefits of the proposed development against any harm it has on the heritage asset, recognising that the greater the harm to the significance of a heritage asset the greater the justification will be needed for any loss.
N John St, Liverpool
Development Management Process9.8 – the ‘demolition tests’:• Removal is justified to
ensure original or sustainable use
• Asset impedes all site use and no viable use in medium term
• Harm caused is outweighed by wider benefits from new proposal (social, economic, environmental, climate change)
Camden, N London. John Gay
Development Management ProcessHE10 – Applies to DESIGNATED assets:• The more significant the asset the
greater the presumption of retention• Loss of most important assets ‘wholly
exceptional’• Every reasonable attempt made to find
alternative uses• ‘Area’ assets such as CAs and WHS are
unlikely to be uniformly valuable, therefore break asset down into individual elements and assess if enhancement or better revealing significance is possible•
Ulverston
Development Management Process• HE 10.6 continued:• Many important
archaeological sites are not designated.
• Undesignated sites can be as significant as protected ones
• Important undesignated sites should be treated by the same principles as designated ones
• (Intention was not to increase protection to anything the LA thought had significant, but some are reading draft in that way)
Netley Abbey, Hants, H Taunt
Development Management Process• HE 11 Development within the setting of an asset:• Parts of an asset’s setting may make the asset more
valuable so losing those is to be avoided or justified• Encouragement to enhance a negative setting
Development Management Process• HE12 Enabling Development:• These principles have not changed in essence from the
current EH publication (although re-worded slightly)
Hanham House, Dorset
Development Management Process• HE 13 Recording:• A record is not as good as
retention• Information collected in
should be made public +HER• Where there will be loss
understanding should be advanced. This work should be published and put in HER, offered to local museum etc
• Controlled by planning condition, where appropriate, in advance of new work
The Practice Guide
The PPS is the ‘must do’ The practice guide is a suggested route
Speakers’ Corner. John Gay Ashendon, Bucks. John Gay
Annex C of PPG15 lives on…• Annex C is very
useful but over prescriptive in places and provides hostages to fortune
• New text tries to capture the essence of the useful bits of the old Annex C and divided by: – Repair and restoration– Addition and alteration– Works for research
alone
Statue, Liverpool
Further Guidance
• Uses categories of:– Landscapes– Buildings and
structures– Standing remains– Buried remains– Groups of, or very
large, heritage assets– Marine sites
• Gives more examples than rest of PPS and Practice Guide
Col Hawley’s excavation, 1919
Consultation ends 30 Oct• Responses to PPS
text to CLG• Responses to
Practice Guide to EH
• Aim is to get final documents out in ‘Spring’ 2010
• EH welcomes but is seeking amendments in a number of places.
Questions on PPS?
Ropewalks area, Liverpool