Updated: 21 June, 2005
© RESCUE

THE TOWN PLANNING GREEN PAPER AND ASSOCIATED CONSULTATIONS

THE VIEWS OF RESCUE: THE BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST

1. Introduction

1.1. RESCUE is a charity concerned with the care of our archaeological heritage.

1.2. In pursuance of this objective it:-

a. makes representations to protect the archaeological resource from needless disturbance and damage;
b. argues for full excavation and publication where change is inevitable;
c. concerns itself with the proper display and interpretation of both finds and sites; and
d. strives to improve public education in these matters.

Obviously our comments are made from that point of view.         ^TOP

2. General Points

2.1. A number of matters concerned us about the general nature of the document and these are dealt with in the next 4 paragraphs.

2.2. We felt that the document showed signs of haste and a number of issues needed further thought.

2.3. We were concerned that what was written was concerned mainly with process not outcomes. Surely the first aim for everybody should be high quality decisions.

2.4. We regret that the main issue has not been faced which is the arcane nature of the development control system after over 50 years of incremental adjustment. The Encyclopedia of Planning Law already runs to 7 volumes. These proposals would add even more. Instead bulk needs to be reduced. Currently its complexities add to uncertainty for business and consume time and talent in planning departments, government and the planning inspectorate in mastering its convoluted nature. We would challenge the responsible minister to ask his civil servants to draw up flow charts for replies to two simple questions: do I need planning permission for a garage in my garden and do I need consent for an illuminated sign? If the answers cover less than an A4 sheet they are either using a very small typeface, misleading him or fail to understand the system. He should ask if such labyrinthine procedures are in anyone's interest.

2.5. This point has implications for RESCUE's sphere of interest. As an appendix we have listed the various designations concerning the broad area of heritage and touched on their varying weights and implications. We have followed this with an indication of the main sources of policy concerning them. We suggest that this pattern is unnecessarily complex and would argue for its simplification. This would allow a full integration of the protection of the built environment and archaeology (the latter being currently very much the poor relation, both in law and policy) and for both to be more fully incorporated into the planning system. As just one example of rationalisation we would point out that now the definition of building operations includes demolition there is no need for a separate system of conservation area consents. A minor adjustment of the Demolitions Direction would allow the matter to be dealt with by planning permission.        ^TOP

3. Detailed Comments

3.1 Development Plans

3.1.1. We have no objections in principle to the replacement of structure plans with regional strategic studies subject to suitable arrangements for democratic inputs and public involvement. However, we are concerned at the possible implications of a resultant run down of county planning sections which could result in the loss of experts on archaeology and historic buildings who currently provide a valuable service for their locality including its district councils. We have already seen how combinations of public spending restrictions and previous changes have caused serious damage. Thus the creation of unitary authorities in parts of its former area resulted in grave losses in the Hampshire County Council teams covering archaeology, historic buildings and ecology - a group which had previously been much admired. We would urge that the sites and monuments record be put on a full statutory basis. This is desirable in itself and would check any unintended attrition of the county archaeological services.

3.1.2. Also we have no objections to local development frameworks. Most heritage policies are already in the more general sections of development plans rather than being site specific. We are confident that the heritage can be protected at least as well this way.

3.1.3. Again we have no objections to business planning zones. The relevant European Directions will require these to undergo preliminary environmental assessment so heritage issues will be addressed in good time.

3.2 Development Control

3.2.1. While most of what is suggested would involve minor improvements, as explained in section 2 above, we deplore the failure to attempt the very necessary root and branch review of this system.

3.2.2. However, we warmly welcome the proposal (detailed in one of the supplementary consultations) generally to replace Section 106 agreements with standard tariffs produced by the local planning authority. Such an arrangement would be clearer, more open and accountable. It could also solve the problems of costs of excavations, publication and storage or display of finds. Despite PPG16, problems still arise, notably when a site proves unexpectedly rich in its finds, where the permission predates PPG16 or the development is worthy but the developer is without the resources to finance a major excavation, for example a charity.

3.2.3. In contrast, we oppose the summary dismissal of all third party rights of appeal. We would point out that all other EU members have some system whether by civil courts, administrative courts or the responsible minister. Such scrutiny has not, for example, check the economic growth in the Irish Republic. We suggest a limit range be tried here, for example when an authority ignores its own plan policies, goes against officers' advice without good reason, or the officers' advice is flawed.

3.2.4. We have misgivings about Parliament making large numbers of major decisions as this would remove most substantial government schemes from any chance of independent scrutiny including judicial review.

3.2.5. We see no objection in principle to jointly prepare master plans replacing outline permissions for major schemes. However, we would like reassurance on one aspect. Many such schemes will need environmental assessments and it is obvious that local planning authorities should set a good example by providing exemplary assessments. They might be deterred by the cost. It should be clear that the potential developer pays. This would be a simple adaptation of the polluter pays principle.

3.3. Other Proposals

3.3.1. We welcome the proposed mandatory training for members. In as far as our limited resources allow we would be pleased to help by providing speakers and giving special terms for the use of any of our publications that might be thought relevant.

3.3.2. We look forward to being consulted on the reviews of PPG15 and PPG16. We would suggest that preliminary thought be given to the Welsh and Scot's equivalents. There policy is in a separate document distinct from technical and procedural advice. We suggest that this is clear and more user-friendly for the public at large. They are also stronger in that they use unambiguous terms notably "must" rather than "may".         ^TOP

4. Additional Point

4.1 The previous administration produced in its last days a consultation on heritage matters. Much of it was agreed to be non-controversial and useful improvements to the system. However, legislative time has never been found for these measures. We urge that they be included in the new planning bill that the current proposals will necessitate.

^TOP

APPENDIX THE HERITAGE JUNGLE

A.1. DESIGNATIONS

A.1.1. Statutory Designations with their own code and major implications for all development control

A.1.1.1. Listed Buildings (identified by government)

A.1.1.2. Conservation Areas (identified by local authorities)

These have their own controls, procedural implications elsewhere (e.g. publicity and limits on permitted development) but also impose general duties on decision-makers.

A.1.2. Statutory Designations with their own code but only procedural implications for development control

A.1.2.1. Scheduled Ancient Monuments (identified by government)

A.1.2.2. Areas of Archaeological Importance (identified by government - only 5)

These have their own codes separate from local government and only impinge on planning as potential material considerations and limits on permitted development (e.g Part 22 on mineral exploration).

A.1.3. Statutory Designation with no stated implications

A.1.3.1. Registers of Historic Parks and Garden (identified by government)

Obviously inclusion is a material consideration.

A.1.4. Designation with international obligations

A.1.4.1. World Heritage Sites (suggested by national governments but approved by UNESCO - submissions must include plans for protection)

Obviously a major material consideration.

A.1.5. Designation with some subsequent statutory recognition

A.1.5.1. Sites and Monuments Records/Urban Data Base (prepared by county in two tier system or unitary authority elsewhere)

These attempt to list all known archaeology. They were established purely as a matter of policy but have been recognised in subordinate legislation particularly the General Permitted Development Order and therefore again limit permitted development rights. Also PPG16 gives them weight as material considerations setting up elaborate procedures.

A.1.6. Other Government Designations

A.1.6.1. The Battlefield Register

A.1.6.2. Registers of Historic Landscapes

The establishment of these is purely a matter of policy. They have no statutory impact but are obviously material considerations.

A.1.7. Local Authority Designations

These are varied but the most likely are:-

A.1.7.1. Local lists of additional buildings of historic interest

A.1.7.2. Areas of archaeological potential

A.1.7.3. Local registers of parks and gardens

A.2. SOURCES OF POLICY, PROPOSALS AND ADVICE

A.2.1 Development Plan Policies

These add the weight of Section 54A and can apply to any of the above including the purely local designations.

A.2.2 Government Policy

The main vehicles are in England PPG15 and PPG16. In Wales and Scotland the situation is different with a division between policy and more technical issues.

A.2.3. Policy Statements by Quangos

English Heritage, CADW and Historic Scotland all produce statements that generally are set at a more detailed level than government policy as examples EH publications include Development in the historic environment and Developing guidelines for the management of listed buildings.

A.2.4. Conservation Area Statements

The Planning (Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings) Act requires LPAs to produce "from time to time" statements setting out proposals for the preservation and/or enhancement of their conservation areas. This is rarely done but when it is such documents should presumably have some weight as deriving from statute. They are rather different from the Conservation Area Appraisals/Character Statements now required by government as a matter of policy.

A.2.5. Supplementary Planning Guidance

LPAs produce much guidance to supplement their development plans. The following are particularly common in respect of heritage matters:-

A.2.5.1. Conservation Area character assessments;

A.2.5.2. Guidelines for shop fronts and advertisements in conservation areas;

A.2.5.3. Guidelines on managing listed buildings; and

A.2.5.4. Guidelines on reuse of historic farm buildings.

A.2.6 Statements by Pressure Groups

There are large numbers of these. Of particular influence are the work of:-

A.2.6.1. Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings on standards of repair and maintenance for historic buildings; and

A.2.6.2. English Historic Towns Forum particularly on highway related issues including park-and-ride and treatments of carriageways, signs, etc.

A.3. OTHER CODES PARTLY OVERLAPPING WITH THE ABOVE SYSTEM

A.3.1. Tree Preservation Orders

A.3.2. Hedgerow Regulations

^TOP