| Consultation
responses: Changes to Permitted Development: Consultation Paper 1 - Permitted Development Rights for Householder Microgeneration (DCLG 2007) |
|
|
Submission from ALGAO:England/Planning & Legislation Committee ALGAO 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 (106 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. We welcome this opportunity to comment on the Government's proposals in this important area. We share and support the Government's concerns to tackle climate change. Microgeneration should make its contribution to this effort, and we recognise the value of this measure, amongst others. We believe that there are ways to successfully implement the various techniques for microgeneration which will be sympathetic to urban design, and the historic environment in particular. Some further thought is needed to clarify guidance, particularly in regard to the impact of construction on below ground archaeology, and how this might be integrated with proposed improvements to the planning system in regard to the historic environment, set out in the DCMS White Paper Heritage in the 21st Century. World Heritage Sites and other designations Whilst the proposals to protect Listed Buildings are clear, and currently Scheduled Ancient Monuments have their own separate protection, that might be brought into line with Listed Buildings on a common register, we are not convinced that the proposals to position microgeneration sources in World Heritage Sites should necessarily parallel that of Conservation Areas. World Heritage Sites have the highest international status, with often very distinctive and individual characteristics. They are also greatly varied in their nature. Although they may incorporate sites and buildings protected by national designations, they often cover areas that extend beyond these specific designations. The impact of, say, wind turbines, within the cohesive urban setting of Saltaire, or below ground impacts within Ironbridge Gorge, if cumulative, may prove unacceptable. We would therefore propose that World Heritage Sites are afforded better protection, either through simply restrictions on the GPDO, as proposed by the DCMS; or, perhaps more flexibly, in ensuring that each Management Plan prepared for a World Heritage Site includes recommendations on what microgeneration might be permitted, that should feed into the relevant local authority plans. Question 2 We believe further thought should be given to permitted development rights in World Heritage Sites, and suggest that this might be tackled through the Management Plans that should be prepared for each WHS, and to inform planning decisions made for them. Archaeologically Sensitive Areas This issue is of great concern to our members. The consultation paper is quite right to raise the potential of significant archaeological damage that could be caused by the cutting of trenches for ground source heat pumps (paras 60-61; 80-84). Typically these are c40m long for a house, and 60m or more for a larger building such as a school. They are dug 1m to 2m deep, which would typically destroy most archaeology within their footprint. Other ground disturbance from excavation of pads sound enough to carry a 10m high wind turbine, and below-ground biomass storage pits may be of concern in certain circumstances. Although Entec have identified `Archaeologically Sensitive Areas' as a way of indicating potential archaeological concerns, these are by no means uniformally defined across the country. Although many local authority areas are provided with indicative areas of archaeological potential at present, many areas do not. Where areas are identified they have been drawn with differing criteria in mind, according to local circumstances, and are far from consistent across the country. Such zoning could be a simple means of flagging archaeological sensitivity, but fairly broad-brush in its application. They are typically derived from more precise information held in local Sites and Monuments or Historic Environment Records. It is not clear from the paper, particularly para. 61, exactly who would be responsible for checking whether a potential GSHP scheme would affect archaeology or not. Para. 60 refers to PPG 16 and planning procedures currently in place to implement it. These typically expect the local planning authority to seek specialist advice, sometimes in-house, but more often from a county council-based advice service. Is the householder to consult the archaeological advice service, or the LPA - if it is to `consider using the powers provided under article 4 of the GPDO to withdraw those rights'? We are already aware of one GSHP trench that has been cut through a Scheduled Ancient Monument, and fear that if such protection is not effective, the suggestions made here will be even less so. We have concerns about local authorities' willingness to use Article 4 directions. Whilst , as para. 84 states, `Usually any implications can be easily worked through', the information provided in PPG 16 is not readily available to the typical householder, and further guidance will be essential for the householder, and also local authority planners. Householders should have ready access to this advice at an early stage in their choice of microgeneration product. ALGAO members will be glad to advise on the archaeological implications of any GSHP, or other microgeneration, proposals, and systems to ensure this need to be in place. The proposals made in the DCMS White Paper may well have implications for the delivery of local authority historic environment services in future, not least the assurance of the provision of Historic Environment Records and the advice based thereon. These may take some time to enact and implement, and clear guidance is needed more immediately. Questions 9 & 10 We believe that clear guidance for householders to establish if a GSHP scheme might have archaeological implications should be prepared, and a plain guide to the potential implications if this is the case. The ALGAO would be happy to advise on any such guidance. Robert Whytehead
Convenor, ALGAO Planning and Legislation Committee |
|