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