38 C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 S sites, post offices and law courts), infrastructure heritage (signal boxes, gas holders and railway bridges, for example), and the amendments and upgrades included as part of our rolling programme of Defined Area Surveys (Margate, Stockport, theWiddows-designed schools of Derbyshire and archaeological sites in Gloucestershire, to name a few). We expect that as heritage protection agreements (HPAs) are revived we will undertake revisions of sites suitable for such an approach to help shape their implementation.We must be realistic about revising the 400,000 or so assets on the NHLE (many years of work, no doubt, and there are still unprotected assets which need our attention), but targeted approaches can make a rolling programme of revision do-able and meaningful. And do not forget that minor amendments, such as name typos, address information and spatial inaccuracies, can be addressed speedily and efficiently through www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/ protection/process/amending-an-entry/. In order for us to do this work, we are proposing significant changes to the way we handle responsive designation applications. Come the autumn, we will move away from a mostly responsive work programme to one that is more strategic. Of those 2,000 applications we receive each year, fewer than one third result in designation; in a time of limited resources, we must focus on casework that provides clarity (revised list descriptions) and protection outcomes (new designations that emerge from thematic and other strategic projects).We have therefore agreed with the DCMS that we will only progress applications for buildings and sites that are under threat of demolition or major change or are closely related to work in the National Heritage Protection Plan (www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/ national-heritage-protection-plan/) and, exceptionally, sites of manifest interest.We will publish more on how this will work and will liaise closely with conservation colleagues, often our most trusted source of applications, on details. Many will remember a time when only threatened cases were progressed, alongside a healthy diet of thematic work. This is what we propose to return to, while sticking to the consultative and detailed approaches of more recent years. Many of you will be familiar with the fast-moving Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which contains a number of provisions relating to heritage planning intended to reduce regulatory burdens while not limiting protection. A brief resume is perhaps in order. The provisions include: •• The power for owners and local planning authorities to make heritage partnership agreements which can give advance consent for minor, routine or repetitive works, reducing consent applications. •• The removal of the requirement for conservation area consent (currently required for demolition in a conservation area) and replacing this with a requirement for planning permission, to reduce duplication of consents. •• The ability to specifically exclude certain features, structures or ancillary buildings from list descriptions meaning, for example, that everything within the curtilage of a listed building is no longer considered automatically protected, and unnecessary applications need not be made. •• The ability to apply for certificates of immunity from listing at any time which means that an owner (or a third party) can obtain an assurance of the status of a building at an early stage without having to apply for planning permission. This third proposal – the provision to exclude certain features, structures or ancillary buildings from list descriptions – is worth further mention. Currently when a building is listed, structures and other buildings that are attached to it or in its curtilage can be become protected as well, whether the secretary of state thought they were worthy of protection or not. List entries of recent years have increasingly mentioned that a particular feature is not of special interest, but this is currently not definitive, and it can lead to debate and confusion as to the extent of protection, and perhaps requests for listed building consent applications made out of caution. The amendments in the bill will allow future new list entries to declare that structures or buildings attached to or within the curtilage of the principal listed building are not protected. It will also allow for a part or feature of the principal listed building to be declared definitively as not of special interest. This will allow the secretary of state to keep the extent of listing protection to that intended at the time of designation. Excluding such features will never be undertaken lightly, rest assured. It is important to emphasise that this change will not apply retrospectively, so existing list entries would need to be formally amended to take advantage of the new provisions.We can all immediately identify the types of buildings which are most likely to generate queries over curtilage structures, where the extent of the curtilage and the number of buildings within it are often a matter of doubt: industrial buildings, large schools, country houses, and houses in towns or villages, many possessing ancillary buildings and curtilage, and many others. For this we propose a sensible programme of work.We would warmly welcome views on priorities, if the bill becomes law later this year.Additionally, DCMS is consulting this summer on further measures suggested in the Penfold Review, with a view to incorporating these into the ERR Bill when Parliament returns this autumn. There is much to do, and reduction in responsive designation is imperative to allow us to address these priorities. To summarise, these are: list enhancement giving priority to development and disposal areas; articulating significance even better; returning to designation across the asset range; responding to the ever-rolling-forward 30-year rule; supporting heritage partnership agreements; and much more. While the Designation Department is proud to have an important role in assessing and defining significance, and advising the DCMS on where it lies, it will continue to seek and respect the expert views of locally planning authority and other sector colleagues when fulfilling this important mission of modernising protection. Emily Gee is head of designation at English Heritage.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=