18 C O N T E X T 8 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 IHBC Annual School 2003 IHBC Annual School 2003 IHBC Annual School 2003 JONATHAN TAYLOR Heritage review One of the central topics discussed at the Annual School was the Government’s review of heritage protection in England, now underway. The scope of the Government’s current review of heritage protection in England is enormous, taking on all the separate components of primary and secondary legislation and guidance which together form the system of protection. As Dr Simon Thurley, chief executive of English Heritage said in his address to the Annual School, ‘such an opportunity for major legislative change does not happen very often, and it is essential that we, and all of our partners, including the IHBC, take a full part in designing the heritage protection regime within which we will all be working for the next few decades.’ The designation of listed buildings, scheduled monuments, conservation areas and other protected assets was outlined by Gillian Ashmore, a consultant to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). She explained to the Annual School that the ministers’ key requirements were for ‘simplicity, flexibility, openness and rigour’. On ‘simplicity’ the Government considers the existing system of heritage protection to be non-user-friendly, if not actually incomprehensible. Ashmore pointed out that current legislation has evolved piecemeal since 1948, with new legislation bolted on to the existing when required, and that few people have a grasp of all parts of the legislation. The Government believes that the existing system acts as a straight jacket for everyone involved in the conservation of historic buildings, and not just for developers, causing lengthy and often unnecessary applications for consent, and that we need to learn from other more flexible regimes such as those used for managing the natural environment. As an example of the need for greater openness and the relatively secretive nature of the existing system, Ashmore referred to the listing of buildings without any discussion with the owner. As one delegate pointed out, consultation could be counter-productive, inviting alteration and demolition during the consultation period. However, the consultation document reflects this concern and suggests introducing automatic protection for the duration of the consultation period. Under the heading of ‘greater rigour’, Ashmore was critical of the ‘cavalier manner’ in which some buildings had been listed, and referred to the ‘lazy habits’ which we must not fall back on. Protecting our historic environment: making the system work better To gain a clearer understanding of what Gillian Ashmore outlined in her short presentation to the Annual School, it is useful to refer to the consultation document itself, Protecting our historic environment: making the system work better, which was released by the Department for Culture Media and Sport on 16 July 2003. The consultation document contains a list of suggestions for change on which interested parties are invited to comment. These include: • bringing together all the current designations into a single, unified list of historic sites and buildings of England covering all types of historically, archaeologically or architecturally important structures • transferring responsibility, for maintaining the list from the Secretary of State to English Heritage • opening up the consultation process • providing a single consent regime for changes to any item on the unified list • improving the information provided in list entries to include a ‘statement of significance’ (the reason for the listing) and what works would and would not require consent. Flexible listed building consent? The Government seeks our views on whether advice by English Heritage on precisely what works would and would not need consent should be included in the new list entries. The aim would be to provide greater clarity for the owner and avoid wasting the time of local authorities on unnecessary or insignificant applications for consent. On a similar vein, the Government also invites views on the use of management agreements between owners and English Heritage and, in some cases, local authorities, as an alternative to the consent regime. This solution is seen as being appropriate for large sites in single ownership such as universities, hospital complexes and some housing estates. Management agreements have already been adopted for some post-war listings, and some local authorities adopt a similar approach for the control of development in conservation areas, for example, by highlighting city terraces where the roofline is relatively unaltered, and those sufficiently altered to justify further additions. Such guidance can simplify the application process. However, consultations already carried out on postwar additions to the list have become bogged down in consultations with owners, residents and other interest groups. As one delegate at the Annual School commented, the proposal could overburden existing resources which are already stretched – a point also raised in the document itself. The consultation document recognises that, since the Shimizu case (Shimizu (UK) Limited v Westminster City Council [1997] All ER481), most unlisted historic houses in conservation areas have been protected from complete demolition only, not
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=