The recent consultation on proposals to improve listed building consent (LBC), led by the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), has generated a range of substantial and informed statements about the process of managing consent, in particular the need to have access to practical conservation skills in line with the IHBC’s membership criteria, and the value of good conservation services, some of which are identified below.
These statements will be added to the IHBC’s conservation services web resource tool, ‘Why planning authorities must have conservation skills’, linked at : LINK
Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies
‘We continue to feel that the most objective source of advice to a local planning authority is that given by an ‘in-house’ Conservation Officer. Many of these will have been in post for years and possess an intimate knowledge of their local area and buildings. Conservation Officers also have a vital role in many other ways – offering advice to owners, preparing Conservation Area Appraisals, drawing up Supplementary Guidance. Limiting their role in Development Control, as this proposal would do, would further discourage local planning authorities from employing such officers at a time when they are already under threat as a result of public spending cuts. The third of local planning authorities who do not have any ‘in-house’ conservation expertise would have even less reason to remedy that serious failing.’
RTPI
‘Those responsible for this consultation should understand that, in noting that 95% of English Heritage sampled applications were approved, it is not implied that these applications were pointless or timewasting; it more likely indicates that the LBC system is well understood, that local authority expert advice is well-directed and positive, and that the public interest is well served by the process that encourages sound proposals…’
‘It is to be regretted that within the outlining of these proposals it is implied that the services provided by conservation professionals within LPAs might readily and beneficially be replaced by accredited experts funded by applicants. It is inevitable that many independent experts (including English Heritage) will rely on and have good reason to trust the local knowledge and understanding of context that will rest with the LPA staff…’
Civic Voice
‘Most local authority planning departments employ at least one full time conservation officer, and some larger authorities employ several. These officers have built up an extensive knowledge of the listed buildings and conservation areas in their district, and their experience is valuable and hard to replace. Smaller authorities that do not employ a full time conservation officer and rely on part time outside assistants should be required to comply with the requirements of the Planning Act by considering employing full time staff but by sharing employees with an adjoining authority. It would continue to ensure that these officers are recognised by the general public as, in the main, being independent and not influenced by external factors…’
‘… We should be investing in conservation departments, not looking for further ways to decrease the capacity and knowledge. If in the long term, councils pursue this approach and in doing so reduce the number of conservation area officers, there could be an unintended consequence that the default position would be to require ‘expert’ input for all apps, which could actually disincentive building owners to pursue expert advice due to costs involved, which is contrary to the aim of the proposed bill.’
Planning Officers Society
‘It is important that any change does not undermine the integration that already exists in LPA’s. All too often planning officers, ecological specialists and listed building specialist officers work very closely together and this unified approach benefits both the applicant and the buildings integrity. There appears in both the Consultation and Penfold Review acknowledgement of the importance of this joint working and it is difficult to see how the introduction of accredited agents would produce any advantage to the applicant in instances where planning permission is also required…
‘Given the responsibility for consulting on the application and making the decision will remain with the LPA there is every likelihood that a non-binding recommendation from the applicants agent would still need the same scrutiny as they would if they were submitted by a professional agent under current arrangements. There is potential for additional financial burdens being placed on applicants as well as raised expectations. It is considered that greater certainty would be achieved through effective pre-application engagement with the LPA, this accords with the approach prompted in the National Planning policy Framework…’
‘The submission of well researched reports that assess the impact of the proposals on the special interest of the listed building benefits all parties. This is already part of best practice regarding listed buildings and other heritage assets. Every applicant should in any event submit sufficient information and reports to allow the LPA to assess the development proposals. If this option were to progress it should be amended to make it clear that this process should be an iterative one where the LPA has the opportunity if it wishes to be involved in setting the brief for the agents reports that will be submitted with the application, to be involved in agreeing that the evidence base used is suitable and that the scope of the impacts considered are agreed. This open process is much more likely to lead to a mutually acceptable result and avoiding abortive applications… ‘
English Heritage
‘… judgement as to the nature of impact and whether it is genuinely positive or justified can be exacting. It may require expert input from consultees such as local amenity societies, English Heritage and the National Amenity Societies. It may be something that is sufficiently concerning for the Secretary of State to wish to consider…’
‘Determining the optimum viable use of a listed building can require a thorough consideration of the impact of alternative uses on long-term conservation. It is something that could require substantial evidence and would benefit often from the input of consultees and the public. If the choice of use is wrong the long-term impacts on conservation could be serious and irreversible…’
For key concerns raised by the IHBC see: LINK
For partners raising concerns over the timing of the consultation see: LINK
For leading initial concerns in IHBC see: LINK
For IHBC’s responses and those of others see: LINK
For IHBC consultation responses see: LINK
