Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PPS 15 Banbury Civic Society Response
PPS 15 Banbury Civic Society Response
PPS 15 Banbury Civic Society Response
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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…'
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.
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.
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.
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.
9.8(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
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.
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 low-
carbon 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.
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, low-
carbon 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).
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)
Rob Kinchin-Smith
(Chair) Banbury Civic Society
24 Springfield Avenue
Banbury
OX16 9HT