Papers out of Government

The Planning Green Paper

The issue of locally loved but unprotected buildings is the subject Moira McGhie’s St. William of York Deposition, which has gained a wide body of support. The deposition would see demolition classed as a form of development and thus make it possible for objections against the demolition of non residential buildings to be lodged with local planning authorities and listened to. The ideal opportunity for this has arisen as a result of the Planning Green Paper, where amongst other things, various changes are proposed to the GPDO. These are to be welcomed: currently it is a vast muddle, totally impenetrable to all but the most agile and patient minds. The idea behind the deposition is not new - we have wanted to see this happen for years, but it is currently gaining increasing momentum due to Moira’s great efforts. Each unlisted non-residential building that is demolished against the wishes of local people gives this initiative further fuel.

‘Sustainable Communities’ is the catchy title of the government’s response to everyone else’s responses to the Planning Green Paper. Although claiming to be about empowering communities, this is essentially a document with the needs property development industry at its heart, not that this is all bad news - indeed many of the more worrying aspects of the green paper have been successfully rejected following the record 16,000 responses to the green paper. Planning is clearly an area in which people are interested - or maybe this is a sign that there was something not quite right with the green paper’s proposals.

First and foremost amongst the changes is that there is now no presumption that the number of statutory consultees will be reduced, although there is a proposal for a 21 day deadline for their responses. More committee meetings to discuss cases in the offing for the amenity societies, poor sods. None the less, a small but important victory.

Other measures include the tightening up of compulsory purchase powers, to make it easier for developers to assemble sites as well as making easier for big projects to move ahead, getting around the obstacles posed by the likes of Mr. Swampy and Co. Although this may whiff of giving license to the big to bully the little, it could have possible effects for buildings at risk, unless of course the measure is made specific to new projects. Still, for local authorities to gain experience and confidence in compulsorily purchasing buildings is no bad thing if they can then be encouraged to use some of that experience to sort out the problems affecting historic buildings on their patches.

So, there is a whole raft of measures that should be welcomed in their own right, but in the wider context of the Green Paper, they might be seen to take on slightly sinister tone, making life easier for those with little or no regard to the historic environment.

The proposed huge injection of cash into the planning system by government is of course welcome but whether this will this have any tangible benefits to conservation remains unknown. Gaps at conservation officer level still exist in local authorities and the problem of buildings at risk is still way down on the list of priorities: a job advert was recently sent to the office for a buildings at risk officer position in a rural authority, salary £12,000. It is more likely that the money will be spent on more administrative staff with little grasp of conservation issues, who will be able to process more of the paperwork, so speeding up the planning process.

A point to be borne in mind when considering the green paper and its offshoot s is the statistic that 30% of all planning applications are reckoned to have some effect on the historic environment. Surely then 30% of the green paper should look at the historic environment.

Review of the Heritage Lottery Fund

Although there are perhaps aspects of the HLF which could be tinkered with (such as decision making times), wholesale massive reform is probably not necessary, and neither is a decrease in the slice of the lottery cake it receives. However, the DCMS is currently having a look at all aspects of the HLF as part of a wider review of the lottery. One suggestion which has appeared from heaven only knows where is that punters could tick a box on the back of their lottery ticket indicating their preferred area. Wildlife, youth and health would benefit, heritage almost certainly wouldn’t.

The HLF has had a massive impact on the historic environment at all levels, providing funding for a massive range of initiatives and projects beyond the well known high profile cases. Given that the number of people playing the lottery is decreasing, any diminution of the HLF’s share of the proceeds will have a drastic effect on its ability to fund this range of activities, and in light of the lack of extra funds heading towards heritage following the government’s spending review, this is the double whammy: English Heritage’s ability to fund historic buildings will in real terms continue to decrease, as will the HLF’s. A vigorous defence of the HLF must be mounted.