Context 153 - March 2018

14 C O N T E X T 1 5 3 : M A R C H 2 0 1 8 or historic interest (internal or external), that would mean that planning permission would automatically be required for all those works that currently require LBC. An application for planning permission in such cases could be advertised and notified to Cadw, the national societies and others (and exempted from fees), just as an application for LBC is at present. Carrying out such works without obtaining planning permission could be a criminal offence – just as failure to obtain LBC is currently. And the time limit for issuing an enforcement notice could be made indefinite, as with issuing a listed building enforcement notice. That may mean that the legislation could be sig- nificantly simplified, by slightly tweaking the details of the planning permission procedures to ensure that all the existing features of the LBC system were retained in effect, and then removing the whole statutory code relating to listed building consent. But what would be the consequences? Where at present a particular project requires only LBC (for example, an internal alteration), it would in future require only planning permission. The planning application in such a case would in practice be publicised as at present, and dealt with, just as at present, by the conservation officer – where there is one – or by a planning officer giving priority to conservation issues. And in practice such issues would be, quite probably, the only issues at stake. Where at present a project needs both planning permission and LBC, it would in future need only planning permission.The application for such permission would be considered by all the officers who currently consider the planning application, again including the conservation officer, where there is one. In this case, the conservation issues might predominate, or they might have to be weighed in the balance against other matters – just as, in practice, they are at present. Some authorities, and perhaps all authorities in certain cases, will give higher priority to the historic environment than to other issues. But that is what happens at present. And the new overarching duty to have regard to listed buildings and conservation areas, noted above, would ensure that such issues would (or at least should) always be at the forefront of the thinking of authorities and inspectors. In theory, therefore, there would seem to be no loss of control, in that everything that currently needs to be authorised would still require to be authorised – but with only one type of authorisation. And all the detailed procedural issues can be dealt with. But it could be argued that such a change might lead to a diminution in the perceived specialness of listed buildings, as the fact that two types of consent are required marks out the value placed by society on the historic built environment. As against that, it will still be the case that internal works – and demolition – need to be approved in the case of listed buildings, but not otherwise. And unauthorised works would be a criminal offence in such cases, but not otherwise. The same approach could also be adopted to merge conservation area consent with planning permission – as has of course already been done in England. Indeed, what is now being suggested forWales is arguably merely taking the same approach as with conservation areas in England, but going one step further. And it would therefore be interesting to know whether the change in the English system has in fact caused problems. More generally, the Law Commission would like to know the views of those who administer the system, as to whether such a change would indeed simplify it, and whether there would be unintended consequences that might outweigh the benefits of any such simplification. Other developments It is not proposed to extend the same approach to scheduled monument consent (SMC), since deci- sions on SMC applications are made by Cadw, not by the planning authority. But it would be interesting to know whether IHBC members consider that planning authorities are in fact able – possibly with assistance from Cadw in appropriate cases – to determine applications for SMC. It is proposed to include a definition of curtilage in the new Planning Act, to incorporate the principles in the Calderdale case, and to make it clear that the extent of listing is to be determined by reference to the extent of the curtilage as it was at the date of listing. Finally, it is proposed to abolish ‘areas of archaeological interest’ – which have never been used inWales. But it would be valuable to hear from those working in the few English districts where such areas have been used, as to whether they have been a useful tool. Consultation The full consultation paper (in English orWelsh) can be obtained on the Law Commission website (www.lawcom. gov.uk/planning-law-in-wales ), with a summary. Also available are individual chapters – particularly relevant to readers of Context are Chapters 5 and 13. Although the official consultation closed on 1 March, responses will be welcome for a few weeks further. Charles Mynors was a conservation officer before practising at the planning bar. He will be known to many readers of Context as the author of the series of articles entitled M’Learned Friend, and as the co-author of Listed Buildings and Other Heritage Assets, a new (fifth) edition of which was published in September 2017. He was invited by the Law Commission to head its project on planning law inWales in 2016. The Grade II listed Trevor Mausoleum in churchyard of the Church of St Mary, Chirk,Wrexham, was built in around 1905 to mark the loss of the child of Baron Trevor of Brynkinallt. (Photo: Llywelyn2000, Wikimedia Commons)