C O N T E X T 9 0 : J U LY 2 0 0 5 9 Charles Mynors and Alex Booth are barristers in the chambers of Robin Purchas QC in the Temple.This article is an edited version of the brand new chapter on ‘the international framework’, from the fourth edition of Charles’s seminal book, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monuments, to be published by Sweet & Maxwell later this year – to include all relevant new legislation and over 100 decisions of the courts since the previous edition. Permission was refused for opencast coal extraction within the setting of the wall. The applicant appealed. The inspector considered that among the main issues raised by the proposal was its impact on an area of great landscape value and on the setting of Hadrian’s Wall. He considered, however, that the applicant had complied with the need to avoid an adverse impact. However, the secretary of state disagreed with that recommendation, saying that a further issue must be the impact of the proposal on a world heritage site. That impact would be unacceptable, and the proposal should accordingly be rejected. The mineral operator challenged the secretary of state’s decision in the High Court, on the grounds that he had been perverse to distinguish the impact on the world heritage site as a separate issue. The deputy judge dismissed the challenge, drawing attention to the ministerial statement in the House of Lords noted above, and confirming that world heritage site designation was a material factor in planning decisions. The secretary of state had accepted that there was no demonstrable harm, but that did not mean that he had to accept every conclusion as to visual impact. He had elevated the world heritage site issue to be a main consideration, but that did not render his reasoning obscure or perverse. Further advice is given in central government policy on the formulation of planning policies relating to world heritage sites, and the scrutiny to be given to development proposals affecting them. But that is brief, and in the blandest terms. It is thus up to the relevant local planning authorities, and the secretary of state on appeal, to ensure the preservation and enhancement of world heritage sites through the normal development control process. It will in particular be essential for authorities to include within their local development frameworks suitable policies to ensure the protection of sites – particularly in cases where no formal protection is provided by means of other designations. The issues arising from this are the same as with the preparation of policies for the protection of conservation areas, considered DerwentValley Mills world heritage site contains a series of 18th- and 19th- century cotton mills, and an industrial landscape of high historical and technological interest. in this column in the previous issue (Context 89, May 2005, p10). Environmental assessment One specific way in which extra protection is given to world heritage sites is that those undertaking projects of any kind within them are subject to a more stringent requirement as to the submission of an assessment of their likely environmental impact than would apply elsewhere.This reflects the principle that a minor proposal in a highly sensitive location can be as significant, and thus as deserving of careful assessment, as a much more major one in a much less sensitive site. Thus the 1985 European directive on environmental impact assessment (EIA) requires that, in principle, all projects in the categories listed in Annex I (that is, really major ones such as motorways and large chemical plants) must be the subject of an impact assessment; whereas those in Annex II need only be the subject of an assessment if they fall within certain criteria, set out at Annex III. These include the environmental sensitivity of the areas likely to be affected by the project in question, having regard, in particular, to landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance.This requirement has been transposed into UK domestic legislation in the form of a suite of regulations, relating to various categories of projects. The regulations that are come across most often are those relating to projects requiring planning permission. These provide that an environmental statement must be submitted along with the application in all cases involving Schedule 1 development (major projects) and, within a world heritage site or other sensitive area, for all Schedule 2 development likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location. Outside such sensitive areas, statements only have to be submitted for Schedule 2 development where it is on a significant scale (determined by reference to criteria appropriate to the category of development involved). More recently, a further European directive has been issued on the assessment of plans and programmes, which has been transposed into domestic legislation as the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. These require that an environmental assessment is to be carried out as part of the preparation of more or less any land-use related plan or programme where it is likely to have significant environmental effects on, among other things, areas or landscapes that have a recognised national, European or international protection status. That would obviously include inscribed and tentative world heritage sites. The net result of all these provisions is that development plans and proposals (in the broadest sense of that term) within a world heritage site are likely to be much more carefully scrutinised than it might be elsewhere.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=