Following a ministerial meeting on the recently closed ‘Improving Listed Building Consent’ (LBC) consultation, the IHBC and partners, including RTPI and RIBA, have collectively welcomed the Minister’s interest in alternative ‘non-legislative routes’ to achieving common objectives.
The meeting took place with John Penrose, Minister for Tourism & Heritage at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) on Tuesday 28 August.
Both IHBC Chair Jo Evans, and Sean O’Reilly, IHBC Director, attended, and reported back to members as follows: ‘We were hugely heartened by the Minister’s appreciation of the practical concerns the Institute has registered over some of the headline proposals.’
‘We were especially delighted that our collective concerns over the consultation timing, and the practicalities of some of its proposals were not only recognised, but valued. Indeed the concerns raised in our response reflected well the government’s own interest in building on existing strengths within the consent system, rather than adding potential burdens that might bring uncertain benefits.’
‘That said, we have not been ignoring real concerns for users and clients seeking consent. On its own, the 31% drop in local authority conservation capacity since 2006 is a sign that the sector faces a huge crisis, and one that will not be resolved by investment on its own.’
‘For some years now we have been energetic contributors to service-focussed discussions, not least the very practical review carried out by Adrian Penfold in 2010, which provided independent endorsement of the relevance of the IHBC’s professional standards. Similarly, with half our own members working in the private sector we are, like many other informed client representatives, also very conscious of the limitations, and consequent threats to our heritage, in some areas of service.’
‘Clearly we must make sure that progress is tied to the IHBC – and any others with conservation interests – providing real solutions to genuine problems. That is the best way to demonstrate that we can address wider government objectives without having to resort to systemic changes that would be fundamentally inimical to conservation.’
Guests at the ministerial meeting were mainly signatories to the RTPI-led letter raising concern over the timing and timescale of the consultation. These included the lead bodies directly involved in consent matters, such as the IHBC, RIBA and the Planning Officers Society (POS), as well as third sector and related interests.
Speaking of the discussions, Kate Pugh, of The Heritage Alliance, pointed out that: ‘It was particularly helpful not to be a ‘heritage-only’ group… the presence of RTPI, POS & RIBA strengthened our position so I hope this group would continue to act together.’
DCMS reported back positively on the meeting as follows:
– The Minister recognised the constraints of a short consultation process, but was keen to make use of this legislative opportunity
– The Minister had listened to, and understood, the views and concerns of consultation respondents on the proposals – this was a genuine consultation despite the tight timescale
– The Minister was keen to look for the least bureaucratic and burdensome route to achieving objectives, and was happy to look at non-legislative routes if they were the most appropriate way forward.
For key concerns raised by the IHBC in its response to the proposals, see : LINK
For partners’ concerns over the timing of the consultation see: LINK
For the IHBC’s initial statement of its concerns over key headline proposals see: LINK
For the IHBC’s responses and those of others see links from: LINK
For the IHBC’s full listing of consultation responses see: LINK
