C O N T E X T 1 3 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 4 49 from the budgetary demands of other council services? Some of you may have seen the infamous Barnet Graph of Doom (cue Hammer House of Horror soundtrack). This graph shows how, only 10 years ago, the three main arms of local government (schools and children’s services; adult and social services; and environmental services, where planning and conservation normally sit) were in balance, being approximately a third each of the overall council budget. The graph shows current trends, where the budgets of the former two (which are largely statutory services and, therefore, unavoidable) will grow to a huge degree to meet the increasing demands for school places and child protection, and the needs of an ageing population.With capped (and now shrinking) local authority budgets, environmental services (usually nonstatutory and therefore discretionary) will be squeezed out of existence. The graph shows that before this decade is out there will be no public funding left for environmental, planning or conservation services. I know that the Graph of Doom was produced to make a particular political point and that events are unlikely to pan out in such an extreme way. But, as we see each year with the planning authority conservation provision survey, there is more than a grain of truth in it (and commiserations to our archaeology colleagues, for whom the job cuts have now very much bitten). Returning to the initial question, we know that the Treasury loathes hypothecation.Why? I suspect because the onus of responsibility for setting provision would then become the Treasury’s. But what is the alternative? In the past the Treasury has agreed to some services being set up on a business-like basis (building control being the obvious example). Has the time come to look at planning and conservation services similarly? In contemplating this, I would have to say that I would not support the provision of planning policy or strategic conservation activities (see above) being opened up to fee-based funding (even if a charging mechanism could be devised, which I doubt). Such strategic services are selfevidently done in furtherance of the general public good and it is only right that the public, as taxpayers, should fund them. However, the position for applicants is rather different; they are seeking to have their proposals tested against those same national and local planning and conservation policies and guidance, usually in pursuit of personal profit or gain. It is not unreasonable for them to pay for this service. Being transactional, this would encourage higher professional standards on both sides. This argument about fees raged a number of years ago when it was proposed that they be introduced for applications for planning permission. It died down within months of their introduction and no one bats an eyelid about planning fees any more. I suspect the same would happen were fees to be introduced for heritage consents and permissions. I would remove the exemption from fees for applications under Article 4 directions too. The vast majority are made in the pursuit of profit and personal gain: why should they not pay? The ability to charge a cost-based fee would remove a strong disincentive on planning authorities to make Article 4 directions, and it would encourage more discerning and better applications (free services always get abused). These ideas and many more are currently being debated within a number of strategic heritage bodies in England. (It may be that the debate has begun in England simply because the cuts in heritage services hit England hardest and earliest, but I suspect that the other Home countries will have to tackle these matters soon too). Some of the developing ideas will emerge into the Historic Environment Forum for further discussion and may fuel the next government’s next round of planning and heritage reform, or possibly the imminent manifestos. It is not always comfortable listening to some of the wilder ideas. But the discussions are being conducted against a realisation that change will come whatever we do, so it would be better to be the instigator of change we can live with than the victim of imposed change we can not. The institute is indebted to those members who took part in the second member survey, which has given a very clear steer to IHBC council as to what members’ priorities are. Setting priorities are always difficult, but in such straightened times they are more essential than ever. These are tough times, requiring courage and clear sightedness. Please forward your thoughts if you are a member wishing to contribute to the debate. Mike Brown, chair@ihbc.org.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=