A Policy Planning Statement for the Historic Environment An introduction to the text

1. A Policy Planning Statement for the Historic Environment An introduction to the text Minster Lovell Hall, Oxon

2. Context PPGs 15 (buildings) and 16 (archaeology) are very old – 1994 and 1990. Separation of archaeology from historic buildings/areas not helpful Part of the heritage protection reforms Heritage Protection Bill currently on hold Best practice is now significantly ahead of PPGs 15 and 16 – this is an opportunity to capture that and prepare for HP Bill at some point in the future

3. Notable changes - 1 A single policy approach to all plan-making and decision-making as it affects the historic environment (para 3) Clear statement that it covers designated, non-designated and not-capable-of-being designated - (para 4) Royal William Yard, Plymouth

4. Concept of ‘Significance’ Heritage assets - have historic, archaeological, architectural and/or artistic interest Interference with private rights of heritage assets justified because of their public value Public value = ‘significance’ Conservation = preserving significance, not every last brick Anne Bronte’s grave, Scarborough See text box for more detail on ‘significance’ p2 of the Practice Guide

5. Govt Objectives Govt’s laudable objectives for historic environment: Applying sustainable development, conserving and where appropriate enhancing Contributing to knowledge i.e. recording /capturing info as part of plan/decision-making, not just in advance of loss Lydiard Church, Swindon

6. Plan Making Policies HE1- more emphasis on building evidence base HE2+3 - choose the right scale, identify the positive contribution heritage assets make, encourage active use, stimulus for new design HE4 - avoid climate change conflict HE5 - Article 4 where needed HE6 Monitoring - positive feedback loop to HE1 Scarborough

7. Development Management Process HE7 - Pre-application assessment: Encouragement of Heritage Partnership Agreements HE8 - Applicant should supply sufficient info to assess significance and LA should take account of expert and local views Monkwearmouth Church

8. Development Management Process HE9 - The key policy applies to ALL assets, not just designated.LAs should: Take into account all relevant info Use appropriate expert advice Seek local views Consider enhancement, long-term viability and place-making role Seek to minimise climate change mitigation conflicts Seek designs that respect existing Dale St, Liverpool

9. Development Management Process 9.7 Where proposal has a negative impact on the significance of a heritage asset, through alteration or destruction, or through development within its setting, the LAs should weigh the public benefits of the proposed development against any harm it has on the heritage asset, recognising that the greater the harm to the significance of a heritage asset the greater the justification will be needed for any loss. N John St, Liverpool

10. Development Management Process 9.8 – the ‘demolition tests’: Removal is justified to ensure original or sustainable use Asset impedes all site use and no viable use in medium term Harm caused is outweighed by wider benefits from new proposal (social, economic, environmental, climate change) Camden, N London. John Gay

11. Development Management Process HE10 – Applies to DESIGNATED assets: The more significant the asset the greater the presumption of retention Loss of most important assets ‘wholly exceptional’ Every reasonable attempt made to find alternative uses ‘Area’ assets such as CAs and WHS are unlikely to be uniformly valuable, therefore break asset down into individual elements and assess if enhancement or better revealing significance is possible Ulverston

12. Development Management Process HE 10.6 continued: Many important archaeological sites are not designated. Undesignated sites can be as significant as protected ones Important undesignated sites should be treated by the same principles as designated ones (Intention was not to increase protection to anything the LA thought had significant, but some are reading draft in that way) Netley Abbey, Hants, H Taunt

13. Development Management Process HE 11 Development within the setting of an asset: Parts of an asset’s setting may make the asset more valuable so losing those is to be avoided or justified Encouragement to enhance a negative setting

14. Development Management Process HE12 Enabling Development: These principles have not changed in essence from the current EH publication (although re-worded slightly) Hanham House, Dorset

15. Development Management Process HE 13 Recording: A record is not as good as retention Information collected in should be made public +HER Where there will be loss understanding should be advanced. This work should be published and put in HER, offered to local museum etc Controlled by planning condition, where appropriate, in advance of new work

16. The Practice Guide The PPS is the ‘must do’ The practice guide is a suggested route Speakers’ Corner. John Gay Ashendon, Bucks. John Gay

17. Annex C of PPG15 lives on… Annex C is very useful but over prescriptive in places and provides hostages to fortune New text tries to capture the essence of the useful bits of the old Annex C and divided by: Repair and restoration Addition and alteration Works for research alone Statue, Liverpool

18. Further Guidance Uses categories of: Landscapes Buildings and structures Standing remains Buried remains Groups of, or very large, heritage assets Marine sites Gives more examples than rest of PPS and Practice Guide Col Hawley’s excavation, 1919

19. Consultation ends 30 Oct Responses to PPS text to CLG Responses to Practice Guide to EH Aim is to get final documents out in ‘Spring’ 2010 EH welcomes but is seeking amendments in a number of places.

20. Questions on PPS? Ropewalks area, Liverpool