Consultation responses: Heritage White Paper: Heritage Protection for the 21st century (DCMS/WAG 2007)	Consultations index ALGAO:Cymru
Submission from ALGAO:Cymru Matthew Coward Cadw Welsh Assembly Government Plas Garw Nantgarw CF15 7QQ 30/05/07 Dear Sir HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: WHITE PAPER I am responding on behalf of the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers: Cymru (ALGAO:Cymru), the Welsh national group of the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers: UK (ALGAO:UK). The Association provides a forum representing archaeologists working for, and providing services to, local authorities and national parks throughout the UK. In Wales its members are senior professional archaeologists providing advice on archaeological conservation and management including the provision of Historic Environment Records and development control services to Unitary Authorities. The following comments are provided on Sections 2 and 3 of the White Paper and are supported by the ALGAO:UK Executive. We welcome the introduction of this White Paper and fully support its expressed core principles and its aims to improve and enhance the protection of Wales' historic assets. We believe there are merits to a unified system and acknowledge that the proposals set out in the White Paper should lead to a streamlined and improved approach. The white paper, although setting out shared aims, clearly identifies differences in approach between England and Wales. We support and welcome the opportunity that the white paper presents to develop a heritage protection systems in Wales and England that suits their differences both in structure and history, but it is important that any legislative differences between England and Wales do not result in an increasing and potentially unnecessary divergence between heritage protection systems. While Wales' small size has enabled the development of strong partnerships and excellent communication between heritage professionals there is a lack of the economies of scale possible to its larger neighbour. In the past it has been possible for Wales to benefit from developments, standards and guidelines, training opportunities, and more, offered in England and relevant to Wales. The potentially increasing differences between systems in the two countries and scarce resources will reduce those opportunities and could result in historic environment professionals in Wales lacking the necessary support. It is important that the aim of achieving integrated and holistic historic environment services should not be lost within any differences of delivery in Wales. There are also potential problems for cross border historic assets and there management. The lack of detail in Section 2 means that there is still a need for the Welsh Assembly Government to clearly set out its proposals for Wales. This will enable informed discussion on any fundamental differences there may be, or whether any differences are in fact a matter of timescales rather than substance. Any proposals from the WAG in relation to future Assembly Measures will also require consultation to ensure that stakeholders are fully engaged in developing systems in Wales. We are particularly pleased to see the key role of the Welsh Archaeological Trusts' regional Historic Environment Records identified. However, a fuller explanation of their current and future roles in Section 2 would have been beneficial. From the white paper it is unclear which aspects of the proposals for England will be put in place in Wales. There is a lack of detail attached to the proposals in Section 2 which in places makes it difficult to see how, or indeed if, some of the measures will be enacted. It is assumed that these areas will receive further consideration and result in additional legislation and guidance under the Government of Wales Act or similar. We assume therefore that there will be future opportunities for further changes to the heritage protection systems in Wales. Supplementary consultation, with all elements of the heritage sector in Wales, but in particular with the local authority historic environment services including the archaeological services of the Welsh Archaeological Trusts, is crucial for the development of a new heritage protection system. It is important that decisions are taken quickly, and openly, about which options to pursue within the new framework, and that these should be agreed and the necessary legislative path timetabled well before the new Act comes into force. Section 2 does not appear to concur with the Section 1 statement "We will support sustainable communities by putting the historic environment at the heart of an effective planning system". The proposed reforms only directly address the protection of designated heritage. It is important that the protection of nationally and locally designated assets form part of a broader system, which recognises the context of these designated assets and the other non-designated elements of our historic environment. Any future heritage protection system needs to be based upon clear understanding of the roles and remits of the various authorities, bodies, institutions and heritage organisations that will be required to deliver the system. Clearer definitions of, for example, Local Authority Historic Environment Services, as has been proposed for England, will be necessary. Specific Comments Section 2 Protecting the Historic Environment in Wales The New System (paragraphs 15-19) The creation of a single unified list for all historic assets, as in England, will simplify the system for users and operators. However, unlike in England it appears that the decision-making will be divided between local authorities and Cadw. This will have the effect in Wales of not creating a unified list but rather a Historic Asset list with sub-categories of 'listed building' 'scheduled ancient monument' etc. As separate processes scheduling and listing make reference to their own separate published criteria for selection. While both these systems have worked well in Wales and desire for change is minimal, we support a move to review the selection criteria and to produce a single set for use under a unified designation system. We support the suggestion that all scheduled monuments, moving into a unified designation system, attract a Grade I classification. Designation - how the system will work (paragraphs 20-24) The lack of detail provided requires the form of the "new unified statutory system" in Wales to be more clearly defined. While there is merit in minimising the amount of physical change to the content or structure of existing information, in the transfer to any new system the failure to produce a truly unified single system, within a reasonable timescale, would only serve to highlight all the current distinctions between scheduled monuments and listed buildings that the proposals seek to remove. We support the inclusion of historic battlefields in the new Register of Historic Sites and Buildings. The registration of well located and delineated battlefields (as opposed to the often more nebulous documentary references to battles as historical events) within the new single designation is highly desirable. We also welcome the intention to rationalize complex monuments currently protected by multiple designations. It is not clear what the "appropriate safeguards" will be in practice that are alluded to here, and whether these are to be replaced by a system of Interim Protection as described in Section 1 (paragraphs 28-31). If these are referring to 'spot-scheduling' powers and the issuing of Building Preservation Notices, these will disappear with the outgoing legislation. The failure to replace them with some form of interim protection would surely be a loophole in a new designation system. While we see the need to offer owners consultation on proposed designations, it would seem appropriate to consult a range of relevant heritage professionals as well as the local authority that may not have relevant in-house expertise. To be truly independent, appeals must be considered by a person or persons wholly un-involved in the designations process. In practice this must mean the prior identification of suitably qualified individuals who might be drawn upon as required, either singly or as a panel, to hear such appeals. This would appear to all intents and purposes to be the creation of an independent appeals body. The Planning Inspectorate is not considered appropriate to fulfil this role. They lack sufficient expertise to consider all aspects of the proposed new designations system - their background being one of planning, not heritage. Heritage Protection and Planning (paragraphs 25-27) Without further capacity building few local authorities presently have appropriate expertise to deal with either Scheduled Monument Consent or Listed Building Consent (although the Welsh Archaeological Trusts would be able to provide an appropriate level of archaeological expertise through enhanced service level agreements). Without additional resources being made available this position is unlikely to change radically before the envisaged introduction of the new measures. It is noted that the option to delegate these powers to local authorities will be left open. There is no clear statement in Section 2 about the introduction of a unified consents procedure in the manner of the proposed Historic Assets Consent outlined for England. Retention of control over consents by Cadw under the new system must be a unified consent procedure and not simply the present parallel systems. Retaining any distinction between consents for 'scheduled monuments' and those for 'listed buildings' will require these items to be distinguished (and in all probability treated differently) within the new single Register, which would be contrary to the intention of the proposed new measures. Every effort should be made to ensure that the new consents procedure is truly unified and that it is seen to be a new and single system. One way of reinforcing this may be the introduction of an on-line application system for the new Consents procedure as identified in Section 1 (paragraph 23). It is to be hoped that Cadw would also adopt appropriate consultation in determining consents under the proposed new system. There is no clear reference to how the planning system in Wales will link with the designation consent system as is proposed for England. The latest planning white paper in England indicates that the planning system is likely to change there. It is important to ensure that whatever planning system there may be in Wales that there is a clear integration of any historic asset consent system into the broader planning framework. Registered Historic Parks and Gardens (paragraphs 28-29) Consideration should be given to the inclusion of the Welsh Archaeological Trusts in the lists of statutory consultees for applications dealing with historic parks and gardens. Local Designations (paragraphs 31-32) It is not clear how the proposed local designation lists might operate or how they might facilitate the further safeguarding of distinctive buildings. Appropriate consultation, with regional Historic Environment Records, on planning applications effecting such buildings already brings them "within the sphere of development control", and their inclusion on a local list will add no additional protection within the normal planning framework. Planning permission should therefore be required for demolition of locally designated historic buildings in Wales. In line with proposals in England local designations should also seek to include other types of historic asset, not only buildings. Guidance should be agreed on how such locally important assets should be identified and designated. Local societies, community groups and the like could also prepare and curate their own local lists through the HERs There is no statement in the Welsh chapter regarding Conservation Areas. It is therefore assumed that no changes are proposed in Wales other than that indicated in Question 1, which is fully supported. Ecclesiastical Exemption (paragraph 33) We hope that any extension of the exemption, which may be considered under the new system, will not lessen the protection of those 'church assets' that are currently considered to be of national importance. An asset falling within the exemption should not affect designation decisions. With or without exemption all designated sites and buildings in ecclesiastical control would make excellent early candidates for Heritage Partnership Agreements. Heritage Partnership Agreements (paragraph 34) We support the introduction of Heritage Partnership Agreements described in Section 1. Clearly such agreements could considerably assist the management of complex multiple sites, but they should not be limited to these and should be implemented, as appropriate, across the full range of sites and buildings. We are concerned that Section 2 appears to contain no indication of any intention to remove Class Consent No 1. The case for this is clearly set out in Section 1 (paragraphs 47-51) on the grounds that the continuation of 'same depth' cultivation has caused demonstrable damage to a significant number of nationally important monuments in England. This case clearly extends to Wales, and yet it is not clear whether this issue will be addressed here. We vigorously support the need to remove Class Consent No 1 in Wales, and to replace it (albeit gradually) with Heritage Partnership Agreements. Characterisation (paragraph 35) The commitment to develop historic landscape characterisation is welcome. We consider that it would have been useful for the white paper to contain a paragraph (perhaps prior to para 35 on Characterisation) acknowledging the existence of the Register of Historic Landscapes in Wales and also the ASIDOHL guide to best practice. Access to Information (paragraphs 36-39) While welcoming the intentions to improve access to information, we note that there is no mention in Section 2 of the various initiatives (to be found in Section 1) to introduce enhanced training, capacity building and support for professionals and others expected to operate and interact with the proposed new system. It would seem vital that suitable programmes are introduced to address this inevitable skills gap. In similar vein there will also need to be new guidance for professional users of the new systems. The regional HERs of the Welsh Archaeological Trusts will play a key role in the delivery of improved heritage protection, and we welcome and strongly support the intention to place a statutory duty on local authorities to adopt and support them. It should also be noted that the local authority needs not just access to an HER, but access to the expert opinion and advice of those who maintain and operate the record. This issue is not merely one of access to a body of data, it is also about the provision of a service at an agreed and maintained level. There is also a need to ensure that local authorities not only adopt and support their HERs but that they are also required to consult them in a prescribed and appropriate way. With statutory 'recognition', HERs will also need to meet defined standards in order to fulfil their role. Agreement must be sought on such standards, how they are to be achieved, and any necessary changes made, prior to the introduction of the new measures. We support Cadw's intention to build on the Historic Wales web portal to facilitate on-line access to Wales' historic environment data sets. Further discussion on access to the Welsh HERs via this portal must be held well in advance of the introduction of the proposed new measures. Section 3 Protecting the marine historic environment in the UK We support the intention to broaden the range of marine historic assets to be protected, and to revise the criteria against which they might be selected for designation. We welcome the intention to make information on Marine Historic Assets available through the Wales Heritage Gateway (we assume this refers to the Historic Wales portal discussed above). However, in order to achieve this aim it will be necessary to accelerate the compilation and distribution of the Welsh maritime database. Similarly, we welcome the encouragement for all four of Wales' Historic Environment Records to incorporate this marine data. However there will need to be further discussion on the best way of achieving this aim so as best to avoid double processing of data and double funding issues. Additional support to assist the HERs to integrate marine data to inform management decisions will need to be considered. Local Planning Authority remits currently do not extend into the marine area and therefore there will be no incentive for LAs to support the upkeep of marine records. There is clearly an issue of responsibility for development control advice within 'territorial waters' but outside the remit of the local planning authority. The following comments are offered in response to the three specific questions asked by the consultation. Question 1 We support the merging of Conservation Area Consent with planning permission, provided that the various safeguards currently offered within Conservation Areas are maintained (or indeed improved upon) by the planning system. The preservation of such safeguards would be particularly important in the face of any future increase in permitted development rights in Wales as for example outlined in the recent DCLG White Paper Planning for a Sustainable Future. Question 2 We fully support the provision of statutory guidance promoting pre-application assessment and discussion for major planning applications effecting historic assets. At present many applicants submit planning applications without fully considering (or indeed fully appreciating) the potential requirements of SMC or LBC or the needs of unscheduled and unlisted assets, which might have been much better resolved at an earlier stage. A requirement to resolve heritage issues at the earliest possible opportunity, and in particular before they get into the planning system, may considerably speed up the process, clarify the relationship between planning and conservation in peoples minds, and may well help to lessen conflicts between these two areas. It would however be necessary to define what is meant by major planning applications. Clearly many infrastructure developments, such as road building or power generation schemes, will have a significant impact on the heritage because of their size but it is also true that smaller schemes may have a disproportionately large impact because of the importance of the assets they happen to impinge upon, and these should also be catered for. Question 3 We agree that an expansion of the current operation of Certificates of Immunity, as outlined, may have advantages. However we would wish to see specific discussion of how such a system would operate in Wales before giving unqualified support. It would be particularly important to underpin this expansion with an appropriately controlled and rigorous mechanism for examining a site in question to ensure that it had no heritage value prior to issuing a certificate. We trust that these comments are useful and constructive. Should you wish to discuss any of the matters raised please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Louise Austin, Chair ALGAO:Cymru   Consultations index ALGAO Maritime Committee Heritage White Paper response ALGAO:England Heritage White Paper response ALGAO:Cymru