2007 Heritage White Paper

10-Apr-08

Introduction

This archive page sets out the RTPI position on the content of the Heritage White Paper, "Heritage Protection for the 21st Century", (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2007).  

The white paper is based around three principles:

  • the need to develop a unified approach to the historic environment;
  • maximising opportunities for inclusion and involvement; and
  • supporting sustainable communities by putting the historic environment at the heart of an effective planning system.

Proposals of immediate significance for planners and the planning system include:

  • merging the listed building and scheduled ancient monument regimes;
  • removing the need for conservation area consent;
  • making demolition and part demolition works in conservation areas subject to a requirement for planning permission (resolving the decision in the Shimizu case); and
  • creating a new system of cultural asset management in the marine environment.

The white paper applies to England and Wales, with the exception of the marine proposals that are UK-wide.

  • Click here to view the white paper
  • Click here to view a summary RTPI analysis of the paper content

A Joint Response

In drawing together the issues in the white paper, the RTPI has prepared a joint response with the Institute of Historic Buildings Conservation (IHBC) and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).  By working with these institutions, the RTPI was able to ensure that the response to the White Paper spoke with one voice for the great majority of historic built environment professionals.

The joint response includes a clear policy vision for the integrated development of heritage policies and services, well-resourced and closely linked to planning and regeneration policy and delivery mechanisms.  Appendix 1 is a powerful presentation prepared by Planning Aid to illustrate the proposition that good heritage policies and practices are essential to the achievement of broad ranging social, economic and environmental objectives.  Appendix 2 provides the IHBC evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, a key foundation stone in the joint position developed between our institutions.

Summary analysis

A summary of the content of the Heritage White Paper and RTPI responses to it is set out below:

This analysis is provisional and members views are an important part of the process towards compiling an RTPI response.

Heritage Protection for the 21st Century?

Joint Response Executive Summary

Our institutions fully support the reform drivers and directions identified in the White Paper, and in particular the commitment to retaining or improving current levels of heritage protection. However our practical knowledge of local conservation planning services and our firm commitment to them, allows us to appreciate the real extent to which they are under threat or in decline. It is essential that any changes are accompanied by wider reforms and adequate resources to underpin the new system.

Our institutions recognise the potential of the proposed reforms to reaffirm the value of heritage protection, in particular within the wider place-management practice explored in ‘Power of Place’ and ‘A Force for our Future’. These reforms could lay the foundation for significant reinvigoration of the services, and should provide a successful framework for future protection.

But such reforms must be introduced with an informed appreciation of their impact, accompanied by appropriate implementation proposals and supported by adequate resources. Otherwise, they will lead to the complication of a marginalised interest already under real threat, rather than to the modernisation of sustainable place management. 

Our institutions support the principle of extending heritage protection in the marine environment, but call for the closest possible integration between the proposed reforms and current DEFRA proposals for a marine planning system.

Our institutions broadly welcome the replacement of conservation area consent with an appropriate requirement for planning permission for demolition in a conservation area. However, we consider that care is needed to ensure that this reform does not reduce the needed to consider the preservation or enhancement of the conservation area when making demolition decisions.

Pre-application discussions on heritage proposals already occur widely and continuation of this practice should be encouraged.

The scope of certificates of immunity from listing should only be extended if applications for such certificates are made subject to formal notification.

Issues welcomed 

The white paper proposes:

  • A 'Unified List' that would record listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and other national heritage assets, avoiding the duplications of policy and control that take place under the current regime.
  • A new statutory definition of ‘special architectural, historic or archaeological interest’
  • Maintenance of the existing grading system for listed buildings which is broadly understood by most stakeholders.
  • Responsibility for Listing would move from DCMS to English Heritage.
  • A new interim protection system for building put forward for Listing.
  • A new combined historic asset consent addressing scheduled ancient monument and Listed Building control.
  • Conservation area consent would be replaced with a requirement for planning permission for demolition and part demolition works within a conservation area, again eliminating the need for duplications of control.  The protection of conservation areas in respect of part demolition works would be restored to the level enjoyed before the decision in the Shimizu case.
     
  • Return to white paper index

Issues provisionally requiring policy development

The white paper proposes:

  • Appeals against listing on defined grounds
    If such proposals are developed, the grounds of appeal need to be clear. Appeals could introduce uncertainty and delay. Would appeals operate both ways – against decisions to list and decisions not to list? It is not clear if a right to appeal would be available to primary parties alone (ie the owners of building subject to a listing proposal), to public parties (ie a local planning authority) or to third parties (ie local and national amenity groups, archaeological and historical societies.
  • Listing on themes
    Thematic listing is welcome as a systematic approach.  However, it should be clear that thematic studies will not prevent timely consideration of individual listing requests.  Individual listing requests (or spot listing) represent a clear response to threats to individual buildings and to the emergence of new research that changes previous views about significance.  A move away from individual listing would also represent a move away from community participation and towards academic assessment in listing. Does this run against the spirit of the white paper and wider trends to empower communities?
  • Terminology used in the new 'asset register'
    Will the term ‘listed building’ be dropped? It is well understood by the public. 'Registered buildings' or 'registered assets' will cause confusion.
  • Ecclesiastical exemption
    What is planned to deal with regions not following the procedures?
  • Conservation Areas
    Further simplification and harmonisation with development planning and management could be achieved.
  • Heritage advice and training
    The white paper mentions the existing English Heritage HELM website, but does not address other training programmes dealing with design and conservation, such as those offered by CABE, the Civic Trust, RTPI Planning Aid and independent providers.
  • Guidance for local lists
    This idea is welcome, although such lists should be mandatory for all local authorities.
     
  • Return to white paper index

Issues not addressed

The white paper focuses narrowly on the regulatory/administrative, picture. It fails to place heritage services into the wider social, economic and environmental context. The whole pro-active, delivery side of conservation services is missing.

Global warming

This needs to be a priority for all place-making professions. The white paper could propose:

  • Research to identify the carbon effects of heritage conservation actions should be undertaken.
  • Heritage conservation policy on global warming should be developed.
  • Generic guidance on making historic properties energy-efficient should be provided
     
  • Return to list of issues not addressed  
Economic development and competitiveness

The white paper makes some reference to sustainable communities, but does not deal with key Barker 2 concerns such as economic development, productivity or competitiveness. There needs to be a stronger emphasis on the role of heritage in delivering urban regeneration, attracting investment, helping areas and local economies to transform to modern demands, etc.

There is no mention of the need to raise awareness and develop best practice for RDAs and other regeneration and funding bodies.

The white paper could propose:

  • Research to develop evidence on the role of heritage in delivering economic development and improving productivity and competitiveness.
  • Action to influence development finance, to reduce resistance to funding refurbishment, mixed use development, etc.
  • Best practice guidance and seminars for RDAs and other regeneration bodies.
  • Equalisation of VAT for new development and refurbishments, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
  • New criteria to focus area grant schemes (EH and HLF) on areas of high deprivation indices, inner cities, declining towns, low demand housing areas, traditional industrial areas, etc.
  • Better promotion and communication of the social and economic outcomes and benefits of conservation.
     
  • Return to list of issues not addressed
Pro-active service delivery

The white paper does not recognise the success of area grant schemes around the country, or make proposals to build on this success.

There is no mention of the importance of building partnerships to enable project delivery, of the bidding culture, successful project formulation and management, etc.

Buildings at Risk surveys have not been mentioned.

The white paper could propose:

  • A new priority for EH: delivering economic and physical regeneration through area grant schemes and other pro-active measures.
  • Means to develop and retain bidding and project management skills in the heritage sector.
  • A statutory requirement (with new guidance and/or a performance indicator) to undertake buildings at risk strategies, to include 'mini action plans' for buildings identified as being at risk.
  • Closer links between DCMS and CLG, recognising that while DCMS is the primary funding department for national conservation bodies, CLG is the primary funder for local government conservation services, and the outcomes/benefits of heritage fall primarily under the remit of CLG.
     
  • Return to list of issues not addressed
Place shaping

The white paper makes no mention of 'place-making' or 'place-shaping' or of the relationship of conservation to urban design and other built-environment disciplines. In particular, it does not recognise the integration of design and conservation services in local government, or the lack of integration of design and conservation at national level.  

The white paper could propose: 

  • A review of national design and conservation bodies such as CABE and English Heritage with a mind to closer working and integration of guidance, etc.
  • Recognition of the cross-disciplinary nature of conservation services , requiring challenges to structures and attitudes that seek to reinforce a 'conservation silo'.
  • A national programme to develop building conservation skills in the construction industry, focussing particularly on areas of high deprivation indices.
     
  • Return to list of issues not addressed
Community cohesion and social inclusion

The white paper does not address social agenda planning issues such as the development of mixed uses and tenures, catering for diversity, social inclusion, etc. There is almost no reference to stakeholders – those who own, rent, live, spend recreation time or work in historic buildings or areas.

It makes passing reference to Planning Aid, but fails to recognise the casework, community planning and education and training programmes provided by the service in respect of design and conservation matters. These services enable the less-well-off, local communities and hard to engage groups to fully participate in the planning of their area.

  • There needs to be a shift in focus by English Heritage and DCMS from visitors to occupiers and users of historic sites, with emphasis on the role of historic places in supporting communities and diversity and promoting social inclusion.
  • DCMS targets for heritage need to be expanded beyond visitors to a range of social and economic factors relevant to stakeholders.
  • The sector needs to develop better community engagement skills, and to ensure that national bodies base their guidance and principles on meaningful stakeholder engagement.
  • DCMS should have a stake in Planning Aid England and Planning Aid for London on the planning matters falling under that Department’s remit. Similar principles may apply to the Welsh Assembly Government and Planning Aid Wales.
  • There could be a commitment to capacity building and support for local voluntary groups to obtain funding and deliver projects to improve their areas.
     
  • Return to list of issues not addressed
Statutory purpose for heritage protection

The opportunity to introduce a statutory purpose for conservation should be taken.

Such a purpose could address:

  • "a means to protect historic buildings, areas, places and monuments for current and future generations, to provide a framework for managing change, and to promote schemes to enhance and regenerate the built heritage for the wider social and economic good and as a means to creating more sustainable environments”.
     
  • Return to list of issues not addressed
Protection of windows

The white paper does not address the current lack of legal certainty over the degree to which windows in unlisted buildings in conservation areas are protected.

  • Legislation should be amended to provide clarity over the protection of windows.
  • Care will be required to reconcile any such approach with due consideration of good practice approaches to the improvement of thermal performance.
     
  • Return to list of issues not addressed
  •  Click here to email your views to the RTPI Policy Team.
Related links
 
Author:
Rynd Smith
Publisher:
The Royal Town Planning Institute
Date:
10-Apr-08
Categories:
Policy, Practice 
Sections:
The RTPI , What Planning Does

This article has been read 7035 times.