{"id":4554,"date":"2012-08-03T17:53:00","date_gmt":"2012-08-03T17:53:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=4554"},"modified":"2012-08-03T17:53:00","modified_gmt":"2012-08-03T17:53:00","slug":"ihbc-slams-dcms-applicant-led-heritage-consent-option-as-legally-flawed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=4554","title":{"rendered":"IHBC slams DCMS applicant-led heritage consent option as legally flawed"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC), the UK\u2019s professional body for building conservation specialists, has dismissed government proposals for applicant-led \u2018certification\u2019 to simplify listed building consent (LBC) as legally flawed and a threat to conservation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Jo Evans, IHBC Chair, said: \u2018Option 4 of the consultation in improving consent processes proposes a kind of applicant-led recommendation on consent for heritage works that cannot work. This is because it removes the independent oversight of public interest that, by law and practice, local authorities must observe.\u2019<\/p>\n<p>\u2018The duty of planning authorities, as laid out in section 66 of the relevant 1990 Act and endorsed in current policy, is to \u2018have special regard\u2019 to the preservation of a building or setting. If the applicant, whether householder or developer, decides on who advises the planning authority on these matters, then the outcome is fatally prejudiced.\u2019<\/p>\n<p>\u2018Indeed, does government really think that an applicant\u2019s agent would submit a recommendation against consent for their own proposals, regardless of the controls in place? Actually, a competent professional would deal with problems long before submission, most usefully in close discussion with the conservation officer.\u2019<\/p>\n<p>\u2018Nor would this proposal complement current procedures or expand sources of advice, as the consultation suggests.\u2019<\/p>\n<p>\u2018Even if the proposal were legal, offering a detour around a council\u2019s conservation service, self-evidently, can only undermine its standards.\u2019<\/p>\n<p>\u2018And competent advisers are already identified through existing listings, including the IHBC\u2019s member lists and our own business registration service, HESPR.\u2019<\/p>\n<p>\u2018We have no doubt that option 4 proposals would be successfully challenged in court, not least by the IHBC.\u2019<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">For HESPR, the IHBC\u2019s Historic Environment Service Providers Recognition service, see<\/span>: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ihbc.org.uk\/hespr\/page1\/\" target=\"_blank\">LINK <\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">For the DCMS consultation see<\/span>: <a href=\"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=4516\" target=\"_blank\">LINK\u00a0 <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC), the UK\u2019s professional body for building conservation specialists, has dismissed government proposals for applicant-led \u2018certification\u2019 to simplify listed building consent (LBC) as legally flawed and a threat to conservation. Jo Evans, IHBC Chair, &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=4554\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sector-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4554"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4554\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4555,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4554\/revisions\/4555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}