C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 9 assessment of a proposal for its alteration. The government also proposes to put on the face of the statute ‘an overarching definition of historic assets’. What is that supposed to mean? Possibly, like ‘sustainable development’, it will be hijacked by those seeking to promote their schemes. Almost everyone responding to the consultation paper felt that the grading system should be maintained. The government has accepted this, and proposes that the present system of grading be made clearer, by the merging of Grades I and II* into a new, unified, super grade of listing: Grade I. That is sensible, but scarcely revolutionary. There was a proposal that some buildings currently classified as Grade II should be reassigned to local lists, but this was unpopular and is not to be pursued. That is scarcely surprising, politically, but is nevertheless unfortunate. There are after all almost half a million listed buildings in England alone, of which around 96 per cent are Grade II. It simply can not be true that all are of equal value. Some form of assessment would be helpful to decision makers, both in considering proposals for alterations and in allocating scarce money for repairs. But it is not likely that half the listed building owners in the land would wish to be ‘downgraded’ to a new Grade III, whether statutory or otherwise. Historic environment records The government has recognised the importance of Historic Environment Records (HERs), the successors to the old Sites and Monuments Records, as they underpin the new system of integrated registers. It accordingly proposes that local authorities should all either maintain or have access to HERs, and that such records should be placed on a statutory footing. This is particularly important in rural areas. Works to historic buildings Possibly of greater concern in practice is the system for protecting historic buildings and areas from unsuitable changes. The first proposal here is that listed building consent and scheduled monument consent should be integrated into a single system. This makes sense, and would echo the integration of the two types of assets into a single register. Second, there will be a system of statutory management agreements, enabling works in defined categories to be carried out on a regular basis without the need for detailed applications to be made in each case. This would be particularly suitable for largescale buildings, sites and landscapes; for complex historic entities that comprise more than one type of asset; and for assets better managed alongside other statutory regimes. Such an approach might also be suitable for assets of a similar type in single ownership but in dispersed locations, such as historic bridges and underground stations. However, it is very doubtful whether it would be suitable, as proposed in a separate consultation paper, for churches, since these are too diverse. Charles Mynors and Alex Booth are barristers in the Chambers of Robin Purchas QC in the Temple. A new edition of Mynors’ seminal book, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monuments, published by Sweet & Maxwell and including over 100 recent decisions of the courts, is expected in 2005. In response to a separate initiative, Halcrow (consultants engaged by the ODPM) have recently completed a research project looking at the possible integration of all the consents in this area. Their report, entitled Unification of Consent Regimes, also supported the unification of listed building and scheduled monument consents as a first stage. It also noted that conservation area consent was in fact only rarely required, and recommended that it be rolled up into planning permission, which is, after all, needed for all development, including demolition.The current exemption from the definition of ‘development’ of the demolition of buildings that are listed or in a conservation area arises solely as a result of a ministerial direction, which could easily be reversed. Looking further ahead, the authors of the Halcrow report – after looking at a number of possible models, as well as the system in other countries – considered that there was much to be said for merging all four consents into one. The government has not yet promised any legislation on this, but will consider the way forward. In practice, however, it is likely that the unification proposal, if is to be implemented at all, would best be dealt with at the same time as the other matters referred to above that require primary legislation. Policy guidance Finally, there was a commitment to replace PPG 15 (historic buildings) and PPG 16 (archaeology) with a single new planning policy statement. However, in view of the impending new legislation that would be needed to implement the changes outlined above, and consequential secondary legislation, it now seems unlikely that new guidance will be produced until after the dust has settled on the new system. Conclusion Overall, the changes outlined here, taken as a whole, represent a worthwhile package of reforms, albeit scarcely radical. However, given that the great bulk of the country’s historic assets have already been identified under the one or other of the existing regimes, it is difficult to see what is the real value in changing the designation/listing system now. Is it a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? The unification of consents, on the other hand, may be a more significant change, that would mark the move of heritage protection back into the heart of mainstream planning where it belongs.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=