Conservation area designation as much as listing is the key to the protection of historic cities, towns and villages. The problem is that in practice it is largely weaker than the equivalent in France, Italy, Holland and parts of Germany. Conservation areas are broadly popular with house owners who value them as a safeguard against intrusive development. Stricter controls are needed over small alterations such as replacement uPVC windows and modern roofing materials, which quickly and cumulatively attack the special character of an area that conservation area designation was intend to protect. One result of these alterations is that expenditure on conservation area grants is constantly undermined by damaging, yet permitted, development.

However, local authorities are reluctant to impose more bureaucracy on owners. The solution that SAVE proposed to this dilemma has now been adopted - that local authorities should have the power to designate Article 4 Directions providing greater control over detail, such as windows, doors and other features of interest if they consult locally and have obtained the support local people. Local authorities in England are beginning to do this, but so far only 4% of the 9,000 conservation areas have Article 4 Directions. By contrast, the figure in Scotland is 50%.

However, some consider Article 4 Directions time consuming and complicated to implement and an alternative approach has been put forward. That is to do away with conservation area consent entirely and instead subject all development within a conservation area which materially affects the external appearance of a building to normal building control procedures. This would be implemented with the help of clear guidance and conservation area character appraisals. The concern that additional planning controls in conservation areas will lead to additional bureaucracy is unfounded according to the English Historic Towns Forum. It has argued that implementing current legislation is time consuming and complex - simplified and increased control would reduce bureaucracy. In addition, tighter controls will encourage sympathetic repair because like-for-like replacement would not require consent. (Townscape in Trouble, EHTF, 1992)

The pace of uPVC window replacement shows few signs of slowing. Without more effective controls the special character of the vast majority of conservation areas will be rubbed out.

It can never be too strongly emphasised that conservation areas were set up in the first place to protect the humbler buildings that either create the charm of a place or provide the frame for listed buildings. It is essential that the presumption in favour of preserving these humbler buildings is upheld and that they are not swept away in favour of larger scale new developments on the grounds that the architecture of the new buildings is more imposing and distinguished, as this steadily erodes the special character of the conservation area. It is much easier to argue the case against demolition if a detailed conservation area character appraisal exists. Many authorities didn't produce these in the 1970s and 80s because the advice then was to designate first and think afterwards, and the thinking never happened. With advice from English Heritage's regional offices, these appraisals must now be completed as rapidly as possible.