48 C O N T E X T 1 1 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Notes from the chair Fit for purpose Initial reactions to the draft PPS15 have varied. Archaeological organisations have generally been reasonably happy with the document, while built environment professions have been far more negative. It is clear that the document has a long way to go before it becomes a fit-for-purpose policy for decision making in the planning system. The IHBC is currently canvassing the views of members through the consultations panel, committees and branches. A number of issues are already emerging. One concern is that the draft PPS focuses very much on analysis and recording of fabric, but is light on other dimensions of decision making. Understanding is of course important. But it is only a part of the process of making effective decisions. The utility value of heritage receives far less emphasis.Yet the key to successful decision-making is in reconciling intrinsic heritage value with utility through sensitive and informed management and intervention.While the former concentrates on the past, utility value is about the present and the future. The continuing use of heritage resources is the key to ensuring their survival and realising their full potential in delivering public benefit. A focus on utility value is therefore of key importance if our heritage is to enjoy continuing support of communities, stakeholders and government at all levels. The PPS needs to recognise the range of benefits that heritage delivers, in particular economic benefits and sustainability. The PPS’s narrow view that economic benefits are mainly concerned with leisure and recreation is particularly worrying, and clearly inaccurate. There are many in government who view the planning system as a barrier to investment, especially environmental protection measures. The PPS needs to demonstrate the link between quality of environment and an area’s ability to attract and retain high value investment, jobs and population. The issue of sustainability is addressed mainly in terms of energy-use in buildings. For the PPS to be effective, it also needs to consider what makes places sustainable. Heritage delivers some of the most sustainable forms of regeneration. This takes in a far wider range of considerations, including mixed use, pedestrian convenience, density, movement and travel, urban form and grain, permeability, and other factors. Consideration of sustainability requires an understanding of place, not just individual assets or groups of assets. Of course, an appreciation of place and of townscape principles is also important to heritage value, or significance in the PPS’s terminology. This is not just about analysis of fabric and styles, but of the relationship between buildings, spaces, streets, movement and activities. PPS1 provides a good definition. Generally, there is little recognition of place, place-making, townscape and other urban design concepts in the draft document. To be effective, the PPS needs to integrate meaningfully with PPS1 and with the overall statutory aims of the planning system. Modern services are delivered often by integrated design and conservation teams. Many professionals with heritage expertise also have skills in urban design. The document refers to the outdated distinction between archaeology and buildings, but addressing the even more outdated separation of heritage from urban design and placemaking would be far more helpful. There are other issues to address. The terminology in the PPS needs to relate to existing legislation if it is to be effective, or indeed usable. In addition, there are concerns that it plays down the importance of Grade II listed buildings and conservation areas. Many would argue that conservation areas are one of the big success stories of the past few decades, especially where area grant schemes have been in operation. Unless the PPS recognises heritage as a positive force for economy and sustainability, deregulation and relaxation of protection is possible and even likely to follow. This could result in considerable harm to our heritage. For the place-making professions that make up the bulk of IHBC’s membership, and for development managers, the PPS needs to move beyond analysis and understanding to the wider range of considerations. These are essential to ensuring the survival and productive use of heritage assets and places for current and future generations. Dave Chetwyn, chair@ihbc.org.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=