Consultation responses: Validation of Planning Applications (DCLG 2006)	Consultations index Maritime Committee
Submission from ALGAO:UK Planning and Legislation Committee ALGAO is the national body representing local government archaeology services at County, District, Metropolitan, Unitary and National Park authority level. ALGAO 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, but needs to be assessed and integrated into the planning process from the start. We welcome these proposals for checklists in support of the introduction of Standard Application Forms. We believe they will have the benefit of supporting local authorities to achieve good standards of performance, and provide LPAs and applicants with greater certainty of the nature and extent of information required to validate planning applications. To support these aims we propose some clarification of this guidance, and how local authorities should apply it. In particular some of the requirements set out in Annexe C need to be changed. Response to specific questions Question 1: These proposals largely make it clear what makes an application valid. There may be some questions over the degree of information that needs to be provided in support of some applications, particularly to adequately analyse historic buildings. Although in these cases applicants should be aware that supplementary information may be required. Further suggestions to improve clarity are made in our response to Question 9. Question 2: These proposals could usefully be extended to listed building and conservation area regulations. However, as noted above, there may be considerable variations in detail needed to support listed building applications that may have to be determined on a case by case basis. Question 3: Most of the considerations for standard planning applications also apply to Minerals Applications, validation checklists might, therefore be applied to them. However many minerals sites are of such size that fuller Environmental Impact Assessments, or other form of Environmental Statement, will be required. Question 4: A reasonable balance is struck between standardisation, particularly in the range of topics to be covered, but flexibility in the degree of supporting information that may be required for any particular topic on a site to site basis. Pre-application discussions could usefully be employed to establish what site specific details would be required to complement standardised information, and thus speed determination of the application. PPG 16 urges potential applicants to consult the local authority's archaeology advisor and their Historic Environment Record at the earliest opportunity. Question 5: Whilst a standard range of topics ensures that both LPAs and applicants will consider the full range of information, again we have concerns about the level of detail that will be required. In particular we identify a wide variation in the amount of analysis required of listed buildings to adequately understand proposals to change them. For many archaeological sites both an initial desk-based assessment and further field assessment may be essential prior to determination of an application and should ideally be provided with the planning application, following the best practice of PPG 16 Question 6: These proposals should enable LPAs to gain the information they need to determine an application. In the case of archaeological information, whether for listed buildings or other archaeology, they may have to consult their archaeology advisors, often based at the County Council, to ensure the information is adequate. In some cases it may be necessary, following the guidance of PPG 16, to ensure that pre-determination field investigation to assess archaeological potential is undertaken, in addition to any initial archaeological desk-based assessment or building appraisal. Question 7: These proposals will certainly standardise the process of validation planning applications, and to the extent that they will ensure consistency , should simplify the process. Question 8: These proposals should not significantly alter the relationship between LPAs and applicants, and should provide clarity to both sides. Question 8: These proposals should not significantly alter the relationship between LPAs and applicants, and should provide clarity to both sides. Historical, archaeological features and Scheduled Ancient Monuments: Whilst we welcome recognition of archaeological features, this section only refers to PPG 15, and completely omits the specific PPG16 on Planning and Archaeology (1990) which provides the salient guidance to LPAs and developers. This specifies the type of information that may be required in support of a planning application. It advocates an Initial Desk-based Assessment, plus, if the desk-based assessment identifies important archaeology, the submission of the results of a Field Assessment, typically a field evaluation, prior to determination of a planning application. Both LPAs and applicants should be guided to consult the local Historic Environment Record (formally known as Sites and Monuments Records) and the archaeological advisor to the local authority, to ensure that information provided in support of an application is adequate, and for what measures may be needed to ensure determination of the planning application. The experience of ALGAO and the LPAs that we adivse is that the guidance in PGG 16 for early consultation on archaeological matters is essential to avoid problems. In many ways the understanding of the historic environment, prior to determination of a planning application, is similar to that of the natural environment. The Biodiversity requirements, that follow on from the historical section are in marked contrast, and it would appear reasonable to reword the `Historical, archaeological features' section in line with them. Wording could possibly therefore be: Supporting information may include plans showing historic features that may exist on or adjacent to the application site, including listed buildings and structures, buried archaeological remains - whether scheduled or not, historic landscapes, historic parks and gardens, and historic battlefields. Information on these can be obtained from the local Historic Environment Record. If an application affects such a site an applicant may need to commission an assessment of existing information and a site investigation and submit the results as part of the application in accordance with advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, 1994, paragraphs 3.16 to 3.19 (see: www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144040 ); and Planning Policy Guidance Note 16, 1990, paragraphs 19 to 23 (see www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144057 ). Where the development proposal will result in significant harm to important historic features or remains, evidence must be supplied as to why the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm, as there is a policy presumption against damage to important remains, whether scheduled or not. Where no such alternatives appear to be available, details of proposed mitigation measures should be given. Detailed guidance on dealing with the impacts of development on historic features and remains is given in PPG 16, and should be sought from the LPA's archaeological advisor. Scheduled Ancient Monuments are not governed through the planning process, however it would seem reasonable to advise any applicant whose application might affect a SAM , or its setting, that they should seek Scheduled Monument Consent from the Secretary of State at the DCMS. To do this they should, in the first instance, contact the Inspector of Ancient Monuments in the relevant English Heritage Regional Office. Listed Building Appraisal and Conservation Area Appraisal We welcome this requirement, but suggest it should be slightly amplified. The written statement should cover both interiors as well as exteriors of the building, and normally be illustrated with drawings. We agree that the scope and degree of detail will vary according to circumstance, and would suggest that the archaeology officer should be consulted in addition to the planning or conservation officer (where relevant). Regeneration Statements Regeneration can be of great value to local communities, one element we would advocate in regeneration statements is one that considers the sustainable re-use of existing resources on a site, whether of the historical or natural environment. I would be happy to discuss any aspects of this advice with you in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact me. Robert Whytehead, Convenor ALGAO Planning & Legislation Committee Consultations index Planning and Legislation Committee Link to COWRIE consultation document