Consultation responses: The Killian Pretty Review Planning applications: A faster and more responsive system: A Call for Solutions (DCLG 2008)	Consultations index ALGAO:England
Submission from ALGAO:England 03 September 2008 The Association of Local Government Archaeology Officers, England, Response to the Killian Pretty Review Introduction ALGAO: England is the national body representing local government archaeology services at County, District, Metropolitan, Unitary and National Park authority level. These provide advice to all the District, Unitary and other local government bodies in the country. ALGAO: England co-ordinates the views of its member authorities (92 in total) and presents them to government and to other national organisations. It also acts as an advisor to the Local Government Association (LGA) on archaeological matters. The range of interests of our members embraces all aspects of the historic environment, including archaeology, buildings and the historic landscape. The historic environment is vulnerable to change. Once destroyed archaeological evidence is lost for ever. Mitigation strategies can be developed for historic assets that are under threat, the broad approach is set out in PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment (1994); and PPG 16: Planning and Archaeology (1990). Where preservation in situ cannot be achieved recording of archaeology by excavation or building analysis is possible. The historic environment can make a positive contribution to planning for new development and new communities, and a sense of place, but needs to be assessed and integrated into the planning process from the start. Setting the Scene The Association recognises that the planning process can be complex, slow to implement, and confusing - especially for householders and small businesses. We concur with the key points that greater resources need to be made available, both to planning departments and advisory services; and that greater training and expertise is needed on all sides, including that of developers and their agents. The Association welcomes the Review's recognition that the planning system has a valuable role, including, inter alia, the protection of the Historic Environment. This is the primary role of our members, functioning within the planning system, and implementing the Planning Policy Guidance notes set out above. These established some key principles to achieve positive outcomes for the historic environment, through sound planning decisions: To establish the issues at an early stage, preferably pre-application To prepare and submit adequate information in support of a planning application (including both desk-based assessment and field evaluation, if necessary) To secure mitigation of the impact of development through planning conditions. Our members, at a local level (District or County); the Association (via its website); and the archaeology and conservation professional bodies nationally, all provide guidance on the historic environment and the planning process, to inform and facilitate applicants. We are happy to provide an initial appraisal of any proposed scheme, and to advise on any stage in the planning process. We have made considerable improvements, over time, in our working practices for advice to local authorities, to speed the issuing of advice, and reducing unnecessary consultations. The Heritage Bill A draft Heritage Bill is currently being prepared for the next session of Parliament, intended to help simplify the application system, for what are currently Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, and Registered Parks and Gardens, and Battlefields. It should secure the provision of Historic Environment Records, to inform planning advice, across the country. We understand that the principles of PPGs 15 and 16 are still supported by Government, and that a new PPS15 will be prepared to replace them, and to reflect the Heritage Bill once it is enacted. Local Government Reorganisation A significant proportion of our members who advise on archaeology and other historic environment matters are based with second tier authorities, typically county councils providing advice to district councils. Others, as stated above, are embedded with unitary authorities or district councils. Some are based with planning sections of their authorities, but others in separate departments, such as `culture and leisure'. This reflects a broad variation in recognition and treatment of the historic environment across local authorities, despite it being a key component of the planning process. Here, again, we are facing change, as the provision of local authority services is being reviewed gradually across the country, with a trend towards unification. This may well result in a faster and more responsive system for planning, but a time of change and uncertainty for our members and the services they provide. There is an overriding concern that historic environment advice, and the information base held in Historic Environment Records, is not lost through re-organisation, and is placed where it can be most effective in informing the planning process. The separation of responsibilities between the DCMS for heritage assets, and the CLG for the implementation of planning, which affects so many of these assets, is not helpful; and leads to an artificial division, reflected in the provision of Conservation Advice in many local authority planning departments. A recent issue that has not helped applicants or local planning authorities has been the removal of any advice on archaeology to District authorities by Northamptonshire County Council, leading to an almost certain loss of archaeology unrecorded. Q1 How much scope is there for introducing a more proportionate and tiered way of dealing with development proposals of different scale and complexity? The process of initial appraisal; assessment; and mitigation, set out in PPG16, is an example of a tiered approach, that can be applied to developments both large and small. It is intended to secure a proportionate response to the potential impact of a proposal. Archaeology can be affected by both large and small developments, in areas of particular archaeological sensitivity. Smaller developments can accrue over time to result in quite substantial overall impact. An early understanding of the treatment of the historic environment, will save time and costs later in the project. Q3 Different types of planning applications require different skills. How can LPA's respond to the continuing skills and resources challenges efficiently? What scope is there for solutions such as sharing of resources/skills between LPA's? The implementation of advice on archaeology in this country has been largely delivered at the county level, where a specialised team, hosting the essential base information in the Historic Environment Record (HER), could advise district authorities, in a cost-effective manner. Districts that had their own archaeology advisor might still draw on the HER housed with the county. Local government re-organisation (referred to above) raises uncertainties about how this may be delivered in future, but in principle such arrangements, perhaps one unitary authority housing an advice team and the HER for what was the historic county might advise those unitary authorities formed from the county. Local solutions will vary. The need to maintain such services does not always appear to have been recognised when re-organisation has been planned. We believe that Government should make clear what standard service provisions should be secured as an outcome of re-organisation, including that of historic environment advice services. Q4 How can we ensure that all users of the system have access to the simple, customer orientated information and guidance they need about how the process operates and what they need to do to put in an application that will satisfy the local authority? Our members, at a local level (District or County); the Association (via its website); and the archaeology and conservation professional bodies nationally, all provide guidance on the historic environment and the planning process, to inform and facilitate applicants. We are happy to provide an initial appraisal of any proposed scheme, and to advise on any stage in the planning process. Local Planning Authorities need to provide clearer guidance (both for themselves and the applicants) on which elements of a 1APP form need to be submitted with any application. Our members can advise on this in relation to heritage statements. Communication is also important not just between the applicants but also between officers both planning and specialists. Both need to know the information that each party can provide, this would enable them to provide a better service to the public. They also need early access to specialist advice to produce a good planning submission with all the required information. Q5 What measures can be taken to improve the quality of applications made by developers, agents and applicants. Early consultation of the historic environment advisors and their likely requirements is essential. There are generic national standards from the professions' national representative bodies, as well usually as local guidance issued by historic environment advisory services. More broadly there needs to be a greater sense of ownership and demonstrable engagement by applicants in the information requirements of local planning authorities, which are to meet their national obligations and local needs. Major projects generate Environmental Impact Assessments or Environmental Statements, these are often provided by different specialists and can be poorly integrated, demonstrating little overall understanding of the impact of the entire project. Q6 How can the information required to support planning applications be made more proportionate, while at the same time maintaining a necessary degree of flexibility to accommodate specific circumstances? What are the key areas where changes to the scale and nature of information requirements need to be made, and how might those changes be delivered. An initial appraisal at pre-application stage should highlight whether archaeology or other historic environment issues, including building recording, are likely to be an issue for determination of a planning application, and to establish the degree of supporting information that might be required. The intention to extend permitted development rights does concern us. In some cases, house extensions, including cellars, may impact on sensitive archaeology. Some forms of microgeneration, particularly ground source heat pumps, can have a significant below ground impact on archaeology. Again these should, at least, be subject to initial appraisal of their potential impact. Q9 How can the involvement of statutory and non statutory consultees in the planning process be improved? The draft Heritage Bill will set out a simplification of planning applications for all heritage assets. Clear lines of communication need to be established, and adequate resources in those organisations. If county council advisory services are viewed as `non-statutory' consultees, then certainly greater resources, particularly staff, need to be made available. Further agreements on process could be established, already quite a number have `Service Level Agreements' or a services charter setting out respective roles of local authority and consultee body. Roles, responsibilities, and contact details of all respective organisations should be clearly accessible on their websites, and through other media. Q10 What do you consider to be best practice in the involvement of elected members in the planning application process? How could best practice be further encouraged? Training can be provided to members. English Heritage are promoting `Heritage Champions' from amongst council members to raise the profile of the historic environment amongst their fellow members to improve decision making. They are supported by a range of guidance papers and examples on the `HELM' website (Historic Environment Local Management). Q11 How might community engagement in the planning application process be made more effective? For major projects, applicants would do well to engage with local communities from the outset, and certainly to present their proposals at an early stage. Where this has been practiced it has often served to dispel conflict, to raise understanding on both sides of each other's issues, engender greater respect, and foster compromise. In our experience local groups sometimes latch onto historic environment issues simply to try to add another seeming obstacle to the development process. This can be tempered by expert advice from historic environment advisory services. Q12 How can the effectiveness of pre application discussions be improved in such a way which improves the overall speed and quality of the process from start to finish? Communication and training, knowing who to contact and also better liaison between planning officers and all specialists who provide them with advice. We need a consistent approach. Linked in with this is the under-provision of specialist advice in some areas which leads to time delays, or inappropriate advice which also leads to delays or an unsatisfactory result. Less confrontation or unhelpful advice from consultants who want to be adversarial rather than working towards a good outcome. In our experience, we seem to receive either less information than is required or lots of useless information. Here again, an initial appraisal at an early stage could establish the appropriate level of information. Q14 What experiences have you had of electronic submission of applications? What more, if anything, could be done to further encourage the use of e-planning in practice? In many ways e-planning has been a great help. It enables advisors not based in local authorities immediate access to a planning application and all its supporting documents. However there are inconsistencies between local authority systems, and the delivery of the information. Examples include some local authorities who delete application details as soon as consent is granted, or the omission of plans and drawings. The practice of presenting documents scanned from hard copy can lead to poor quality or illegible documentation, this could be avoided by loading documents as .pdf or Word documents. Q16 How could the concerns about conditions be addressed? How can the discharge, enforcement and monitoring of conditions be improved? This is a significant issue for our members. Whilst archaeological investigations may be undertaken quite speedily on-site in advance of development, the subsequent assessment and analysis leading to publication of the results, plus deposition of the site archive, may take a considerably longer time, running into years. These stages are set out in a Written Scheme of Investigation pursuant to a planning condition, and approved by the local planning authority. However the monitoring to ensure that these stages all take place, and are undertaken to adequate standards, usually falls to our members, who must advise the local planning authority that the terms of their condition have been met. Where standards or deadlines are not met, we are concerned that local authorities have the resources, and sometimes will, to enforce compliance. Such monitoring may be a significant burden on our members' resources. In the case of sites where preservation of archaeological remains in situ is to be achieved, it may be desirable to monitor ground conditions for a period of time to ensure that any surrounding development does not cause ongoing changes to ground conditions that might affect the remains. This may require monitoring devices to be installed and regularly read, with the results of the readings being reported to the local authority and/or their advisors. We would advocate that clearly set out stages, coupled to deadlines, of work to meet the terms of a condition are explicit in the Written Scheme of Investigation submitted to the local planning authority. That the relevant planning conditions to secure archaeological investigation are not discharged until publication and archive deposition have been achieved. Consultations index Planning & Legislation Committee Killian Pretty Review