C O N T E X T 1 1 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 0 11 rather than is it bad enough to refuse? As we all struggled to become familiar with the concepts of local development schemes and statements of community involvement, and wondered how we would manage to retain protection of the historic environment in the relentless drive to deliver housing, reform of historic environment legislation entered a critical phase. The publication of the long-awaited white paper was continually deferred, until in January 2006 the first specific parliamentary inquiry into heritage since 1993 was held by DCMS. Set against the backdrop of loud noises of radical reform of local government coming from Ruth Kelly at Communities and Local Government (remember her?) it looked as if the opportunity for reform was slipping away. The role of English Heritage in this process became one of balancing the very different aspirations of separate government departments while maintaining credible progress on reform to reassure an increasingly sceptical heritage sector. The DCMS white paper Heritage Protection for the 21st Century finally emerged in 2007, but without the CLG logo. The CLG was too busy issuing yet another planning white paper and the second report from economist Kate Barker, only three years after the major reforms of the 2004 Act. As the IHBC reported at the time, there was significant concern about the rate of legislative change and its impacts on already stretched local authorities. Despite this concern, there was a considerable response to the consultation, which improved and informed revisions of the proposed legislation. A similarly vigorous and lively response was given to the draft PPS when it too went out for consultation in the following year. We awaited a demonstration of the long-overdue joining up of government which passing the bill and issuing the PPS together would represent. As election speculation mounted during the last months of 2009 and into 2010, the prospects of the Heritage Protection Bill faded. The PPS did just sneak under the wire before the election was called but the final result is far from the aspirations of all those years ago. The vision of a simplified and more transparent system for managing the historic environment has fallen victim to a lack of coordination by a government that just could not resist change for change’s sake. Trying to produce a considered reform that ensured that the rich variety of the historic environment would be safely handed on to future generations proved incredibly difficult to achieve. One view is that the result is once again one of those typical compromises that characterise the development of historic environment legislation in Britain, but this fails to recognise the real change that has happened. To paraphrase PPG15, a familiar and cherished scene has been transformed, but has it been for the better? The correlation between legislation and policy guidance has been ruptured. Instead of a simpler system, complications have arisen. The intellectually appealing approach of PPS5, supported by the application of Conservation Principles, allows for a new language to be used to express special interest and the wider public value of the historic environment. But it is not comfortably supported by the existing tests in the Planning, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990. The level of protection provided by previous legislation and guidance may remain, but it is not as easy to articulate. Accessibility to information on the historic environment has been transformed with the development of resources like the HELM website, the Images of England and the Heritage Gateway, but the well-understood policy framework for managing it has been altered. There is a real danger of even this transformed landscape being lost. The continual attrition and attacks on the value of planning that have taken place over the past 10 years have not been effectively challenged. Time to consolidate change has not been provided and speed has become a virtue. The move to place the historic environment at the centre of the planning system has not been accompanied by a recognition of how important it is to provide resources, time and appropriate political support for such a move. With the effects of the recession likely to be felt for at least five years and the cold winds of austerity beginning to blow, the question has to be asked: will all of the time and intellectual effort spent over the last decade prove to be irrelevant if the value of the planning system itself is now being fundamentally questioned? Change is always challenging but there are
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=