RESCUE

The British Archaeological Trust

15a Bull Plain, Hertford, Hertfordshire SG14 1DX Telephone: 01992-553377

rescue@rescue-archaeology.freeserve.co.uk http://www.rescue-archaeology.org.uk

Implementation of the Penfold Review A response from RESCUE The British Archaeological Trust www.rescue-archaeology.org.uk

The Penfold Review of non-planning consents was published with surprisingly little fanfare in July 2010. The latest in an ongoing series of planning reviews that have spanned the 2010 change of administration at Westminster, it makes a number of recommendations designed to deregulate the current system and to promote business investment in development. The Governments response from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills Implementation of the Penfold Review was published towards the end of November 20111 and sets out the approach the Government intends to pursue in order to adopt the Penfold Reviews recommendations. RESCUE has a number of concerns about the Penfold Review and the Governments response to it in terms of its impact on the historic environment. This document presents a consideration of the specific points made in the implementation report but begins with a statement of a series of points which underlie RESCUEs position. RESCUE takes the view that the historic environment is a positive benefit to both local communities and the wider national cultural landscape. We reject any suggestion that heritage might represent a burden to the development sector: in fact sustainable and sensitive development which compliments and enhances the existing heritage landscape is widely recognised to represent a significant positive outcome both by developers and the wider public. RESCUE believes (and shares this belief with other bodies concerned with archaeology and the historic environment) that a statutory obligation on local authorities to maintain an effectively functioning Historic Environment Record (HER) is an essential first step in any system of sustainable development and should be enacted by parliament as a priority. Without such statutory status it will be difficult or, in some cases, impossible to implement many of the proposals outlined in the Penfold Review and the implementation document. Throughout the development boom of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the implementation of the planning policy guidance notes PPG15 and PPG16 had no noticeable effect on the development sector and did not significantly impede or prevent any major programme of development. Both PPS5 and the proposed National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) maintain the same broad range of principles and practices in respect of the historic environment and it seems extremely unlikely that these will pose any impediment to a revival in economic activity once the banking and financial sectors are reformed and revitalised.

Help save the past for the future

Heritage tourism contributes a significant amount of money to GDP and this is both enabled and sustained by a vibrant and dynamic heritage sector 2. In this regard, a flourishing heritage sector should be considered to be part of any programme of sustainable economic development. Archaeology and allied social sciences contribute to the success of British universities by drawing in fee-paying students from across the world. The export of technological and theoretical know-how through the work of British archaeologists abroad contributes to the scientific and cultural profile of the country whilst enhancing our knowledge and understanding of other cultures and histories.

The following notes relate to individual sections of the implementation document. Scrap unnecessary development consents and simplify others Section A All four of the proposals in Section A would seem to presuppose the existence of an adequately resourced and effective system of local conservation officers and archaeological officers providing advice, in order to ensure that the relaxation of conditions in conservation areas takes place on an informed basis. Currently this is not the case with local authorities having to substantially reduce archaeological and conservation officer posts in order to meet government spending targets3. In addition, the ongoing diminution of resources at English Heritage will make achievement of the Governments objectives virtually impossible in the short term. RESCUE has serious concerns regarding the proposal (A1) to legally define a listed buildings special interest without there being adequate resources available to English Heritage to enable them to properly reassess the Listings. More generally section A also presupposes that everything that is significant about a structure can be defined through an examination of its current state. This is not the case as many buildings yield hitherto hidden features of significance during alterations. If this policy is to be pursued, the Government must include a commitment to enable spot-listing in the case of newly-revealed features of significance Section B Section B1 is subject to the same problems regarding a lack of local authority conservation and archaeological officers as outlined in Section A and the evidence indicates that Local Authorities see historic environment services in general as a prime target for severe cuts or complete abolition. Section B2 suggests that independent agencies may receive accreditation to offer certification of applications for Listed Building Consent. This immediately raises the question of who will provide accreditation for the proposed independent agents in the absence of any effective body which might undertake this role. The proposal would seem to raise the spectre of such services being provided by firms who simultaneously have a financial interest in development schemes. RESCUE seeks clarification of this point and a clear statement of the ways in which independence will be defined and assured. In the absence of any definite proposals RESCUE would prefer to see the certification of

Help save the past for the future

applications remaining in the hands of Local Authority conservation officers and HER staff who are not subject to the pressures that may come from being part of the development sector. Experience indicates that agents are often influenced unduly by the interests of clients over the requirements of unbiased heritage protection measures. Section C RESCUE supports the commissioning of English Heritage to update the list of Listed Buildings but notes that local concern for buildings of character and distinctiveness must be both acknowledged and acted upon. RESCUE knows of a number of examples where English Heritage and local amenity, historical and heritage bodies disagree profoundly over the importance of specific buildings, landscapes and townscapes. The principles of localism should require that English Heritage take note of these concerns and acknowledge them, even where they may not appear to be significant at the national scale, for example, when the interior of a building has been compromised but its historic exterior benefits the local scene. In addition RESCUE has serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the resources available to English Heritage to undertake the task outlined in section C. We believe it will be impossible to achieve the desired outcome without a significant additional contribution by the Government to the budget of English Heritage. Section D RESCUE would need to see exactly how (and if) archaeology and the historic environment are dealt with in the proposed Environmental Permit regime before commenting on detail on the proposal set out in Section D1. The Penfold Review also recommended unifying heritage consents in a similar way as is set out here for the Environmental Consents, yet the measure is excluded from this implementation report. RESCUE questions the reason for this omission.

Section E No comment.

Section F No comment.

Section G No comment.

Help save the past for the future

The reform of agency remits in respect of sustainable development Section H RESCUE is concerned that the proposal that English Heritage be charged with a remit to promote sustainable development suffers from a number of serious flaws. These include: An inadequate definition of what constitutes sustainable development, specifically the term sustainable which requires precise and rigorous definition if it is not to become a mere fig leaf for any kind of development. The apparently limited scope of the term development to cover only the increased building of homes, offices and industrial premises and the further expansion of outof-town and inappropriately scaled urban retail development. This implicit definition seems to wholly ignore the potential of tourism and educational opportunities based upon the natural and historic environment and its enhancement to act positively to contribute to economic development defined more broadly. The assumption that a concern for our national archaeological and historical heritage in some way necessarily represents a negative impact on economic development which the accumulated evidence of the decade prior to the banking crisis does not in any way support. A profoundly questionable dilution of the primary remit of English Heritage which is to champion the historic environment, to ensure its protection for our generation and those that follow and to provide advice to Government and other relevant authorities about how to do this. RESCUE believes that the requirement for English Heritage to take on a fundamentally revised remit in which the scope of development is narrowly defined by the interests of the business community and the development sector risks damaging both the reputation and standing of English Heritage as a national conservation body and also of introducing confusion and conflict into its practices and professional ethos. While development, broadly conceived, can include the enhancement of communities, regions and of opportunities for individuals and groups in society, the definition which seems to be implicit in the document under discussion is much narrower than this and is concerned principally with the interests of certain sectors within the business and commercial sectors. Such a narrow definition will do nothing to further a broader socio-economic agenda which offers the opportunity to resolve some of the larger problems currently affecting society (consistent with the governments parallel aims of enhancing localism and building the Big Society) while at the same time enhancing opportunities for economic activity more generally. RESCUE would wish to see such concerns reflected in a broader and more explicit definition of development and in the range of responses to the diverse challenges which currently face us.

Help save the past for the future

Setting a clear timescale Section I RESCUE agrees that a clear timescale for planning applications and determinations is a desirable objective but notes that current understaffing and under-investment in local authority conservation and archaeological officers makes the thirteen week proposal a questionable one. The implementation of a mechanism to ensure the adequate staffing of HERs and related services is a requirement before this proposal can be implemented.

Transparency Section J Transparency in government (both local and national) is a highly desirable objective and in pursuit of this the government should be transparent about the effects of cuts to local authority budgets on HERs, local and regional museums and conservation officer posts, all of which are essential to any effectively functioning system of heritage protection and the multiple positive benefits that accrue to local communities from this.

Making it easier to apply Section K RESCUE welcomes the proposal for an improved Planning Portal but notes that in cases where local authority HER and conservation officer posts have been lost and where staffing is inadequate to respond to the needs of the development community greater transparency will not have any significant effect on the outcome of planning decisions. Nor will it be possible in such cases to balance the requirements of the development industry with the wider concerns and requirements of local communities.

Section L No comment.

Conclusion RESCUE agrees that there is a broad consensus of opinion that the planning system as it currently exists is dysfunctional and not working coherently. Successive Governments have attempted reform of the development consents landscape but none have done so in a holistic manner. This has resulted in a system where bureaucracy has proliferated and the planning system is looked upon as complex and confusing. RESCUE accepts that a proper review of the need for and operation of many consents packages is both necessary and welcome. In spite of this, RESCUE notes that, statistically, the number of successful

Help save the past for the future

applications for either planning permission or for non-planning consents required within the development process is extremely high. This implies that that those working to administer the system within the current legislative and guidance regime continue to encourage and permit development satisfactorily. The Government maintains that the current system is a barrier to sustainable development: RESCUE would contend that whilst the current system is indeed in need of a coherent strategy for slimming the documentation down and removing duplicated or conflicting principles, there has been no evidence presented to support the Governments claim that these consents regimes are a barrier to development and that as a result the official premise of both the review and the basis for the recommendations for its implementation are fundamentally flawed.

Notes
1

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/better-regulation/docs/i/11-1413-implementation-ofpenfold-review.pdf

The role of the heritage sector in contributing to the national economy has been documented over a number of years in the annual Heritage Counts survey: http://hc.english-heritage.org.uk The 2010 survey concentrated specifically on the economic impact of heritage and the historic environment and found the impact to be a significant and positive one: http://hc.english-heritage.org.uk/Previous-Reports/HCEconomic-Impact/

Since the announcement of the details of the Comprehensive Spending Review HER and conservation officer posts in a number of Local Authority areas have been under severe pressure. In some cases there is a very real danger that effective development control in respect of the historic environment will become all but impossible as staff numbers no longer reflect the scale of the task placed upon HER staff. Examples include Liverpool (including the World Heritage Site), Sandwell, Fenland and the Tees Valley. RESCUE has campaigned consistently for the maintenance of levels of service as detailed on the RESCUE websites www.rescue-archaeology.org.uk and https://rescue.crowdmap.com/main

Help save the past for the future