# / . 4 % 8 4 - ! 9 )("# .EWS #OMPULSORY PURCHASE PROPOSALS SHOW HERITAGE MYOPIA 4O ACCOMPANY THE PLANNING GREEN PAPER THE $4,2 HAS TABLED PARALLEL PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS AND PROCESSES INCLUDING COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WRITES "OB +INDRED ! TWO YEAR INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESENT ARRANGEMENTS WAS UNDERTAKEN BY CONSULTANTS "UT AT NO POINT DID THEY APPEAR TO EXAMINE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT .OR DID THEY MAKE CONTACT WITH THE )("# OR %NGLISH (ERITAGE 4HE 'OVERNMENT MAINTAINS THAT THE PRESENT USE OF COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS IS SLOW IN OPERATION AND NOT ALWAYS FAIR TO THOSE WHOSE PROPERTY IS AFFECTED 4HEY CONTEND THAT THERE IS UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE LAW ABOUT THE SCOPE OF SOME OF THE POWERS AND ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF COMPENSATION LEVELS 4HERE IS A NEED FOR MAJOR CHANGES TO BE MADE TO THE WAY THAT THE SYSTEM OPERATES TO MAKE IT SIMPLER FAIRER AND QUICKER 4HEY FEEL THIS WILL BENEFIT BOTH ACQUIRING AUTHORITIES AND THOSE WHOSE PROPERTY IS TAKEN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS TO PROJECTS WHERE COMPULSORY PURCHASE IS NECESSARY AND ENABLE LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO IMPLEMENT THESE MORE QUICKLY 4HE $4,2 STATES THAT IN PARTICULAR THE 'OVERNMENT WILL s 0ROVIDE POWERS WHICH MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AUTHORITIES CAN PURCHASE LAND COMPULSORILY FOR THE FULL RANGE OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION PURPOSES s 0ROVIDE FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN THE WAYS BY WHICH AUTHORITIES CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR PROPOSALS ARE JUSTIFIED HAVING REGARD TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST s 3PEED UP THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE CONFIRMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASES OF THE COMPULSORY PURCHASE PROCESS s 0ROVIDE FOR A MORE ATTRACTIVE COMPENSATION PACKAGE INCLUDING MAKING LOSS PAYMENTS AS AN ADDITION TO VALUE BASED COMPENSATION TO REFLECT THE COMPULSORY NATURE OF THE ACQUISITION 3OME PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE WILL REQUIRE PRIMARY LEGISLATION WHEN PARLIAMENTARY TIME ALLOWS )SSUES RELATING TO THE FORM OF THE LEGISLATION ARE BEING WORKED ON BY THE ,AW #OMMISSION WITH THE SAME AIMS OF IMPROVING SPEED SIMPLICITY AND FAIRNESS 4HE COMMISSION IS CONSULTING SEPARATELY ON THESE MATTERS AT PRESENT !GAIN THE )("# IS NOT PRESENTLY INVOLVED )N MID $ECEMBER THE $4,2 PUBLISHED A CONSULTATION PAPER FOR COMMENT BY -ARCH 4HE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF REFERENCES TO THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT PROMPTED URGENT )("# LIAISON WITH %NGLISH (ERITAGE THE *OINT #OMMITTEE OF THE .ATIONAL !MENITY 3OCIETIES THE !RCHITECTURAL (ERITAGE &UND AND THE !SSOCIATION OF 0RESERVATION 4RUSTS 4HE )("# RESPONDED IN MID *ANUARY WITH THE SUPPORT OF ALL THESE BODIES WHICH ALL HAVE A DIRECT INTEREST IN THE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF #0/ POWERS FOR LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS 4HEY HAVE A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN TWO SPECIFIC ISSUES THE USE OF REPAIRS NOTICES ON BUILDINGS AT RISK AS A PRELIMINARY TO #0/ UNDER SECTIONS n OF THE 0LANNING ,ISTED "UILDINGS AND #ONSERVATION !REAS !CT AND #0/ PROCEDURES IN CONSERVATION AREAS 7HILE WE APPRECIATED THAT THE $4,2 S PRINCIPAL CONCERN IS THE LARGER QUESTION OF LAND ASSEMBLY FOR REGENERATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS WE NOTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT INTENDS TO @PROVIDE POWERS FOR THE FULL RANGE OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION PURPOSESx INCLUDING HALTING THE PHYSICAL ECONOMIC AND OR SOCIAL DETERIORATION OF AN AREA 4HIS SEEMED TO US DIRECTLY GERMANE TO HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT ISSUES 7E ARGUED THAT LAND USE PLANNING AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WERE CLOSELY AND DIRECTLY LINKED AND THAT BOTH WERE IMPLEMENTED BY LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES 4HE $4,2 S AIMS THEREFORE APPEARED TO BE PRECISELY WHAT THE POWERS UNDER THE LISTED BUILDING LEGISLATION INTENDED )NDEED WE POINTED OUT THAT THE REFURBISHMENT OF DERELICT HISTORIC BUILDINGS WAS OFTEN A CATALYST FOR REGENERATION AND A MATTER OF LEGITIMATE COMMUNITY INTEREST AND CONCERN 7HAT WAS NOT CLEAR WAS THAT THE REVIEW AND THE PROPOSALS HAD EVALUATED HOW THE STEWARDSHIP OF THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT COULD ASSIST IN THIS EXERCISE )F THIS WAS SOMEHOW IMPLICIT WITHIN THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT IT WAS NOT EVIDENT 7E CONSIDERED THAT THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED 7E REITERATED TO THE $4,2 THE EVIDENCE ON REPAIRS NOTICES PUBLISHED BY !SSOCIATION OF #ONSERVATION /FFICERS IN AND STILL VALID 4HIS ARGUED THAT HERE WAS A VITALLY IMPORTANT MECHANISM FOR SAVING DETERIORATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS AT RISK AND A STIMULUS TO CONSERVATION LED REGENERATION -ANY HAVE NO MARKET OR DEMAND AS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE CONSULTATION 4HEY WERE REMINDED THAT THE MERE THREAT BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY TO USE THE POWERS UNDER SECTION WAS OFTEN ENOUGH TO TRIGGER ACTION BY A RECALCITRANT OWNER EITHER BY CARRYING OUT SOME REPAIRS OR BY DISPOSAL $IFFICULTIES STILL AROSE BECAUSE AN INDIFFERENT HOSTILE OR ABSENTEE OWNER HAD TOO MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO FRUSTRATE AND DELAY THE PROCESS OF SAVING THE BUILDING )N PRACTICE THE RESULT WAS FREQUENTLY FURTHER DETERIORATION OR COMPLETE LOSS BEFORE A #0/ WAS COMPLETED DESPITE THE SECRETARY OF STATE S OWN CLEAR ADVICE IN 00' THAT EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO PRESERVE HISTORIC BUILDINGS 3PEED CONTINUED TO BE OF THE ESSENCE IF FABRIC WAS NOT TO BE LOST FOR GOOD AND IF REPAIR COSTS WERE NOT TO ACCELERATE 4HEREFORE WHILE WE SUPPORTED A SIMPLER AND QUICKER SYSTEM WE THOUGHT THE FAIRNESS SHOULD BE WEIGHTED IN THE 0RINCE OF7ALES 4ERRACE +ENSINGTON 4HESE PROPERTIES WERE DERELICT AND ON THE BOROUGH S "UILDINGS AT 2ISK 2EGISTER &OLLOWING A THREATENED #0/ A NEW OWNER REDEVELOPED BEHIND RETAINED FA ADES 0HOTO BY 2OYAL "OROUGH OF +ENSINGTON #HELSEA
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=