44 C O N T E X T 1 3 3 : M A R C H 2 0 1 4 are spread across 90 different local authorities, many of whom have different views on what does or does not require consent. For example, some authorities insist on listed building consent applications for every lock gate that needs changing. Others are content with an exchange of emails on the subject and leave the trust to get on with the job. In fact, lock gates need replacing on a 25-year cycle. Although the trust is careful to replace them with no diluting of the special interest of their latest appearance (the detailed appearance of lock gates changes again and again over time, as archive photographs show), there is nothing historic as such about an individual set of lock gates. That can take some explaining, and it is not realistic to expect hard-pressed conservation officers to be experts on the arcane heritage of canals. In this context it is useful that the trust’s heritage advisers have good working relationships with conservation officers up and down the country, and are always willing to arrange site visits or meetings as required. In addition to locks, there are 835 listed masonry arch bridges which could potentially be covered by the LBCO. Again, these are found on most canals and are scattered across up to 90 different local authorities. Many are 200 or so years old and the common problems they share (including a rise in vehicle bashing) are well understood by the trust’s engineers and heritage advisers. Data for the past five years (2008/09-2012/13) shows that in that time the trust and its predecessor received 1,514 consents or clearances. Large numbers of these Far right: Cropredy Lock, Oxford Canal. Specific works to locks like this could be covered by a national listed building consent order. A typical masonry arch bridge, recently repaired on the Grantham Canal. Specific works to bridges like this could be covered by a national listed building consent order. related to lock and bridge repairs, with a typical LBC application costing around £1,500 in staff time, meetings, site visits and paperwork. The trust believes that a national LBCO would facilitate development of a common and consistent approach across a number of local authorities. It will save time and money, introduce greater certainty, reduce risk, and make the planning and delivery of works more efficient. The LBCO will cover only clearly identified and specified works of repair, renewal or alteration that does not harm the special interest and heritage value of locks and traditional brick or stone masonry arch bridges. Local listed building consent orders Under ERRA provisions, local listed building consent orders (LLBCOs) present another opportunity for efficient management of heritage assets. They could work especially well for rare types of heritage assets that are concentrated in one or maybe two local authority districts, or are found only on particular lengths of canal. An example of the former might be the historic wooden lift-bridges on the Oxford Canal (South) that are concentrated in Cherwell District. An example of the latter might be the cast-iron bridges, all made by Horseley Ironworks in the early 19th century, that are largely concentrated on the Oxford Canal (North). Both these types of heritage asset exhibit robust, simple forms that are historic and characterful, and that require repeat works of maintenance and repair or renewal of elements over time. Far right: A rare type of wooden lift-bridge found on the Oxford Canal (South) in Cherwell District could be the subject of a local listed building consent order. A group of cast iron bridges on the Oxford Canal (North) could be the subject of a local listed building consent order.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=