2 C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 Context Editor Rob Cowan Editorial Coordinator Fiona Newton 21 George Street, Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 9JU Tel 01507 602567 email [email protected] Editorial Board Fiona Newton (chair) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Michael Taylor (main features) Cartoons by Rob Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2010 ISSN 0958-2746 Publisher Published for the Institute of Historic Building Conservation by Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury,Wiltshire, England SP3 6HA Tel 01747 871717 Fax 01747 871718 email [email protected] www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions to Context Context is available to non-members of the IHBC at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £50.00 Elsewhere £75.00 Subscription orders, together with remittances payable to Institute of Historic Building Conservation, should be sent to the IHBC Business Office at Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA. The views expressed in Context are not necessarily held by the IHBC or the publisher. Neither the publisher nor the IHBC shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. We gratefully acknowledge the support of firms whose advertisements appear throughout this publication.While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this issue of Context is current and correct, neither the IHBC nor the publisher can be held responsible for any errors or omissions which may occur. Copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November.The copy deadlines in 2010 are: Issue Deadline July, Issue 115 17 May September, Issue 116 19 July November, Issue 117 20 September and sparse. Coupled with this, the PPS introduces a raft of new language for us to take on board. How long will it take us all to feel the same attachment to ‘heritage assets’ and ‘significance’ as we do to the language passed down through circular 8/87 to PPG15? The separation of policy from guidance, in line with the current approach of governments across the UK, has made the document significantly shorter than both PPGs 15 and 16. With only 12 policy areas, the strippeddown approach will take some getting used to.The much-lamented loss of Annex C, which offered precise technical guidance on many aspects of conservation practice, has been a sore to many. Others are more sympathetic to the new approach, treating cases on their individual merits.The new accompanying English Heritage-authored Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide provides interpretation for the policies in the PPS and is a material consideration.The guidance is jointly owned by English Heritage and the relevant government departments. The guidance is seen as more flexible and open to later amendment. Indeed, the IHBC has raised issues with English Heritage on how guidance could be amended in the future to improve certain areas.To balance this there needs to be an awareness that it should not be treated as something so flexible that it will have little weight and confer little protection. Terminology Those parts of the historic environment that have significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or indeed artistic interest are now called ‘heritage assets’. In terminology at least, the PPS provides the first attempt to develop an integrated approach to the historic environment in line with the aims of Heritage Protection Reform. Legislation to create an integrated list is still seen as the aim. It is interesting to speculate how it would differentiate between buildings with utility value and monuments incapable of use. This is especially important to avoid the tests of viable use being applied to monuments that have no potential for productive use.The PPS gives no working definition of artistic value for practical purposes, but as such status is based on the determination of IHBC comment on PPS5 Fiona Newton, IHBC projects officer, writes: So there it is at last! The new Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5), issued in March, replaced two of the oldest pieces of planning policy guidance – PPG15 (1994) and PPG16 (1990).The response to the document has been, in the main, a sense of relief, given the widespread unpopularity of original draft document. Indeed full credit should be given to all those involved in the redraft, as the revised version marks a considerable transformation from the original. Of course it has strengths and weaknesses, and each of us will have a different view on the balance of these, but it is clear that it presents a new approach, which will certainly take time to get used to. For this reason English Heritage, through its HELM programme, has been providing introductory seminars to the document, while the IHBC is looking at how best to support implementation now that we are faced with this new tool. Although similar in approach and basic content to the consultation draft PPS issued in October 2009, PPS5 is more coherent and more consistent. It has been substantially reshaped in the light of comments and criticisms raised by the IHBC and the wider conservation sector.The joint consultation response of the IHBC with the RTPI led to front-page coverage in the national press and a subsequent announcement from planning minister John Healey that ‘to put it beyond doubt, there is no question of downgrading the protection of historic buildings.The current language in the planning policy statement is not clear enough.We will redraft it to make clear that the protection of heritage buildings will not be reduced.’ PPG15 was intended not only for local authorities, but also as a useful source of guidance for property owners, developers, investors, amenity bodies and others. PPS5, on the other hand, is planning policy and nothing more. PPG15 was for many an inspirational document filled with useful quotes. It could be used to explain clearly many key aspects of our trade, not just to the planning committee, appeal hearing or developer meeting, but also to the local society or the historic building owner unfamiliar with the system. It was a faithful friend with beautiful prose and added value, against which PPS5 seems very dry
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=