42 C O N T E X T 1 0 9 : M A Y 2 0 0 9 Notes from the chair A more integrated approach to heritage The IHBC is receiving much anecdotal evidence to suggest that losses of conservation professional posts in both the private and public sectors are continuing and possibly accelerating, partly as a result of the credit crunch and partly from local government restructuring. Clearly, job losses are occurring in all sectors and industries. However, decisions to shed place-making specialists are particularly unfortunate at a time of recession and could have serious implications once an economic upturn begins. Interestingly, Communities and Local Government has already expressed concern over the loss of planning jobs. A ministerial letter has been sent to local planning authorities urging them to redeploy under-used planning staff rather than making them redundant. Design and conservation specialists are perhaps especially vulnerable. There are instances in local authorities and private sector firms where design and conservation specialist teams have been reduced or disappeared altogether. Clearly this depends to a large extent on the perceived importance of such teams, not just resources. Some organisations and local authorities see them as central to the delivery of sustainable economic growth and regeneration. To others, they are peripheral to delivering corporate priorities. This latter view often reflects a numbers-only approach to regeneration and development. A possible consequence of loss of jobs may be a shift from in-house services in local authorities to greater use of consultants. But in many instances local authorities will simply not have access to the skills they need. This raises serious questions. Clearly, there are special duties under the planning system with regard to historic buildings and areas. In addition, urban design is given a high priority in planning policy and is subject to a new statutory duty, introduced by the Planning Act 2008. Delivering sustainable development is also an explicit aim of the planning system. It is unclear how local authorities that have dispensed with their specialist design and conservation staff intend to deal with planning proposals, and to make sound and lawful decisions. Of course, many teams are also involved in gaining funding and delivering regeneration directly. This capacity is especially important at a time of recession. The views of central government are unhelpful.We should be clear that the arguments put forward by large house-builders that the planning system is a barrier to investment and growth have hit the target. The stream of efficiency reviews of the planning process demonstrates this. The fact that there is little evidence to support such claims does not matter. The recession has shown that it is the economy that regulates housing supply, not the planning system. But this inconvenient reality has largely been overlooked. We can learn an important lesson from this. In compiling cases to promote design and conservation, our arguments need to be convincing and wellsupported. The split of planning and regeneration functions between different government departments has also proven to be problematical to the heritage sector. There is no doubt about the scale and extent of the social and economic benefits that the heritage sector delivers. However, such benefits are of more relevance to Communities and Local Government, while heritage is administered by the Department of Culture Media and Sport and is seen in mainly cultural terms. Measures for heritage are narrow, being concerned only with visitors to heritage sites. There is little focus on those who live and work in, or otherwise benefit from, historic buildings and areas. There are no social or economic performance indicators. This means in practice that neither department has a focus on the major outputs and outcomes being delivered by the heritage sector. The split in responsibilities between the strategic side of planning and the ‘place-making’ side has wider implications. Many appreciate that regeneration and development needs to be about creating places that work, not just numbers of units. Unfortunately, the split in planning responsibilities between government departments means that this message is often under-appreciated. There is theoretically greater integration in the devolved nations, although in practice heritage still appears to be considered more in cultural terms. There is a long-term, structural problem in the way heritage is dealt with by government: it is delivering tremendous benefits under one set of criteria but resourced under an entirely different set of criteria. At a time when public finances are under pressure due to the need to pay for failure in the banking sector, the narrow cultural focus compromises the ability of the heritage sector to make the best case for resources. The visitor indicator for heritage needs to be replaced or at least supplemented by more meaningful measures of the ways in which it is delivering higher value economic development and more inclusive and sustainable forms of development and regeneration. The proposed ministerial statement on heritage provides an opportunity to make this shift in emphasis. It needs to be a very different document to the rather disappointing stereotype presented by the Better Places to Live statement of a few years ago. This is a real opportunity for change, placing heritage in the wider context it deserves. Dave Chetwyn, [email protected] Correction Heritage White Paper In Context 108 (March 2009) Dave Chetwyn wrote that ‘English Heritage’s inexplicable response to the news was to publish a leaflet claiming that 90 per cent of the reform could be achieved without the need for primary legislation’. This was a misquote of the English Heritage statement made following the delays to the Heritage Bill. English Heritage had actually said ‘that two thirds of the changes set out in the HeritageWhite Paper can go ahead’.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=