| Consultation
responses: Planning White Paper: Planning for a Sustainable Future (DCLG 2007) |
|
|
Submission from ALGAO:England planningreformconsultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk 17/08/07 PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE: RESPONSE BY THE ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL OFFICERS FOR ENGLAND 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 (90 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 the vision and goals of the White Paper, in particular the "continued protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment". We support the need to tackle climate change, and understand the desire to streamline the planning process. Q.1 The proposed package of reforms We agree that there is a case for reforming the current system for planning nationally significant infrastructure projects. In that the overall package of reforms proposes more effective public consultation, and to help promoters of infrastructure projects to improve their preparation of applications, these reforms may well achieve the objectives you have set out. Q.2 Introduction of national policy statements We agree, in principle, that if national policy statements really do clarify government policy and strategy, then they should reduce delay to inquiries. Q.3 Content of national policy statements These core issues would all be pertinent to national policy statements. In particular they should be assessed by SEAs, however the SEAs can only be effective if the policy statement provides enough specific detail to enable meaningful assessment. There is a danger that broad aspirational policies will generate bland supportive environmental assessment of little real value. Every national policy statement should consider the potential impact on the historic environment. Q.4 Status of national policy statements We agree that the national policy statements could be the primary consideration for the infrastructure planning commission, provided that the core issues are adequately covered, and do reflect all the national planning policies set out in existing Planning Policy Statements and Guidance. PPGs 15 & 16 that cover the historic environment do need improving and updating, and some added clarity. However, in the absence of new statutory guidance, the principles of PPGs 15 and 16 should be applied by the Commission. If national policy statements are to identify specific sites, then the local plan policies should be considered, and proper environmental assessments undertaken. Q.5 Consultation on national policy statements Clearly effective public engagement is essential, these general proposals would seem to achieve this. It is essential that local, regional and national bodies are consulted in addition to the statutory agencies, since the information to which they have access will in many cases be more complete and up to date. These should include the historic environment advisors to local authorities and the Historic Environment Records and their accompanying advisors in any specific affected areas. Q. 6 Parliamentary scrutiny This would appear an essential democratic safeguard. Q. 7 & Q. 8 A timescale of 10-25 years may be appropriate, subject to the need to review policy statements every 5 years. In archaeology in particular, new discoveries can be made at any time that might significantly alter an assessment of the relative importance of the historic environment of a specific site, so that, where proposals do affect identified areas in particular, this should be kept under review. Q. 11 The preparation of applications We support standards being defined and set for the preparation of applications. This is essential to ensure that the historic environment is considered in enough detail to enable informed decisions to be made. We would be happy to contribute to standard setting by the commission for the historic environment component of any application. PPGs 15 & 16 advocate a staged approach to understanding the historic environment. This comprises pre-determination: desk-based assessment, which can be coupled with non-intrusive site investigations; on which can be based targeted intrusive field evaluation, to assess the extent and importance of archaeology. On the basis of this information an appropriate mitigation strategy can be secured by planning conditions placed on any consent granted. Such information gathering does take time to assemble, and needs to be planned from the outset of any specific infrastructure project planning application, but this model should be followed in the development of any scheme. Q. 12 Consultation by promoters Consultation of local communities is essential, both to engage with affected people, but also to gain from local knowledge. PPG 16 advocates early consultation of archaeological advisors to or within local planning authorities, to provide an initial appraisal of the archaeological implications of a proposed development area. This enables the applicant to understand the historic assets within or affected by a proposed project and how to integrate them into their project planning and design of their application. Promoters should therefore be guided to seek advice from the Association's archaeological advisors at the earliest stages of project development. Q.13 Consulting local authorities It is absolutely essential that local authorities are consulted from the earliest opportunity, and that such `special status' is inevitable. Local authorities are placed at the heart of this country and the implementation of many Government policies. In particular they play a core role in implementing the planning system. They more than anyone engage with their local communities. The DCMS White Paper on Heritage in the 21st Century proposes that there should be a new statutory duty for every local authority to maintain or have access to a Historic Environment Record, and advice based on it, that should inform understanding of, and decision-making on, archaeology, the built environment and the broader historic landscape. These are essential components of our lives. The planning system, and in particular PPGs 15 & 16, makes it clear that early consultation on the historic environment is essential on which to make informed decisions, for applicants to develop their proposals, and to protect the historic environment or mitigate the impact upon it. An early consideration of the historic environment ensures that cost-effective decisions can be made; historic assets are properly recognised and integrated into development plans; and that unexpected discoveries and delays are avoided or minimised. All local authorities in England have access to an HER, and advice based on it, and they are therefore the most comprehensive source for planning for the historic environment. Any consultation process should ensure that local authorities draw on appropriate advice where they do not have expertise in- house. Promoters of infrastructure projects should be made aware of the full range of topics they should be considering when engaging with local authorities. Q.24 Rationalisation of consent regimes This proposal covers a wide range of powers to be rationalised under one authority. The procedures and practices they encompass have developed over a considerable length of time, and many Government and non-governmental bodies currently administer them. Each is a repository of experience and expertise in the varied areas covered. A significant concern will be how the proposed commission will be able to acquire adequate expertise in so many areas, and to administer its powers. A particular concern for this Association is powers to grant Listed Building Consent, Conservation Area Consent, and Scheduled Monument Consent - or the new system of heritage protection reform once it is enacted. We welcome the acknowledgement, in footnote 1, that the use of the proposed powers will be subject to the infrastructure planning commission having in-house heritage expertise. However, we would like assurance that such advisors are properly accredited heritage professionals and that the Government Heritage advisor, English Heritage, continues to have a formal role in the consent process. In addition we would ask that the local authority heritage experts including this Association's members who are responsible for managing 95% of the country's historic environment are used as a source of advice by the Commission on all infrastructure projects. In addition, this Association's members also manage Historic Environment Records.(HERs) which are the definitive source of information on the historic environment and which Government is proposing in the Heritage White Paper should be made a statutory duty of local authorities. HERs and their staff should be used by the Commission as the source of heritage information for all infrastructure projects. In addition certain infrastructure projects may affect historic marine assets that fall within the Maritime consents system. Q.25 The commission's mode of operation A wide range of issues, such as those set out in Q24, may well be pertinent to the consideration of many applications. Will 3-5 people (or even just one) have the range of experience and skills to consider such a diversity of information, is there not a danger they will focus on those areas of which they have particular experience? How will the secretariat be constituted to ensure the full range of issues is adequately assessed, and to compensate for a small number of commissioners' inevitable gaps in knowledge? Q.26 Preliminary stages The majority of this Association's members are located within county authorities, but advise district councils. We advocate consulting us directly at the earliest stages of consideration of any application. Q.27 Examination In principle this could improve consideration of applications, provided the written submissions are in adequate detail, and to a high standard. Q.30 Archaeological Conditions Any conditions should have their purpose clearly explained, and should be enforceable. Conditions to secure archaeological investigation should be in line with that currently recommended in PPG 16, para. 30. When assessing costs, impacts and benefits of archaeological mitigation strategies, the commission should be aware of the full range of investigative procedures that might be used; and the need to both publish and archive the results of archaeological investigations (whether of buildings or below ground remains). When conditions to secure the preservation of archaeological remains in situ are applied, the need for long-term monitoring of any measures should be considered. Q.32 Commission's skill set Heritage skills should encompass understanding of the full range of historic buildings and other assets, including parks and gardens; all periods and types of archaeology; and the broader urban and rural landscapes. However, it will not be realistic for the Commission to have access in house to all of the wide range of necessary skills that will be required. As stated in our response to Q24 above, we therefore feel that it is essential both English Heritage and the appropriate local authority heritage advisor are used as a source of information and advice by the Commission. Strengthening the role of local authorities in place shaping The historic environment has a crucial role to play in shaping a sense of place. Yet in some authorities the delivery services are being marginalised or cut. The outcome of the DCMS proposals for the delivery of heritage protection in future may place certain obligations on local authorities in the future. At present there is considerable concern that with reduced resources it is extremely difficult for our members to play the active role they would like, and that local communities deserve and would value, in promoting the historic environment of places. We therefore call for the adequate resourcing of planning authorities, but, in particular, county council archaeological advice services and their Historic Environment Records. Although stress has been put on e-planning as a means of improving the speed of planning delivery, our member shave found considerable difficulties in using the systems that have been developed, and the ways local planning authorities have implemented them. More work is needed to make these systems, and the information they deliver, fit for purpose. This Association would be happy to contribute advice to make these improvements. Q.37 Sustainability appraisal and Supplementary Planning Documents It is essential, in the first place, that historic environment policies are included in DPDs. These should demonstrate an understanding of what is important and the application of national legislation in the local context. Certain SPDs may propose changes that could have an effect on the historic environment, and may well enter into detail not covered by parent DPDs. Whilst really significant impact should be covered under EU SEA requirements, consideration should be given to reviewing the scope of SPDs that might require further appraisal beyond that of a DPD. Q.38 Permitted development for non domestic land and buildings We are concerned about cumulative impact on the historic environment of many small-scale developments. Extensions and other permitted development are likely to be larger for industrial and commercial premises than those to domestic dwellings. Restrictions should apply to sites, areas and buildings currently protected by Listing, Scheduling, Registration, or in Conservation Areas. LPAs should seek advice on areas that might be especially archaeologically sensitive, through a notification system. Q39 Neighbour Agreements We are also concerned about the cumulative impact on the historic environment of developments which will not require formal planning permission if they are the subject of neighbour agreements. In particular, many archaeological sites are vulnerable to damage from small householder developments, especially in historic urban areas, and it is important for the applicant, the LPA and the local community that all are aware of such impacts and the LPA are able to make arrangement for the appropriate conservation of the archaeological resource. R Whytehead,
|
|