20 Carol Rosier highlights the kind of information which can be gleaned from recording PPG15AND RECORDING: THE OXFORDSHIRE EXPERIENCE It is now just over two years since the appearance of PPG15. As well as providing a long awaited synthesis of current policy guidance, the new PPG also represents a landmark document. For the first time it establishes a framework for the recording of historic buildings in parallel with the provisions already successfully established for archaeology through its sister document, PPG 16. For those familiar with the injunction of Circular 8/87 that an applicant should not bear the expense of any record made, the change represents a significant departure, introducing the possibility of developer funding to stand alongside the work of the Royal Commission. The potential for the improved documentation of applications and the greater understanding of the built heritage are considerable. However, successful implementation of the provisions will rely not only on the initiative of Conservation Officers, but on close and effective liaison with their archaeological and development control colleagues. Fig. 1: Cornbury Stables, Bicester. I should like to consider the experience of one county, Oxfordshire, in implementing the provisions of PPG15. To this end, the article is divided into two parts. Using case studies, the first section will examine the value of recording as a development control tool, both prior to determination and as a condition of consent. The second, which will be published in a future issue, will cover the wording of planning conditions and the preparation of briefs. In Oxfordshire, the County Archaeological Service performs a planning advisory role, liaising with the Conservation Officers of the four District Councils in determining cases meriting recording. In general the decision will depend on three variables: the perceived importance of the building, whether it be by a known architect or of an unusual type; the extent of the proposals and their potential impact on fabric of interest, and the state of existing knowledge; in other words whether the building has previously been studied or recorded and at what level. Even a building which has been the subject of extensive research in the past may still merit recording if it is likely that proposals could expose or destroy fabric or features of interest. It is a rare case in which we have total prior knowledge and intrusive works do not provide further information. For the Conservation Officer, the most immediate need is for sufficient information to determine an application. The poor standard of plans or lack of supplementary information is a frequent lament and often the application will have been registered by support staff before the quality of a submission can be reviewed. Whilst early contact and prior negotiation with applicants remains desirable, in practice the number of cases in which this occurs will be limited. In this respect the new guidance represents an important shift of emphasis. While the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, recognised the prerogative of the planning authority to seek "such other particulars as may be required" in order to review an application,PPG 15 goes further in underlining the importance of adequate information in the decision-making process. For, according to paragraph 2.11, not only is it open to local planning authorities to seek such information, but moreover, they "should expect developers to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special interest of the site or structure in question, and to provide such written information or drawings as may be required to understand the significance of a site or structure before an application is determined". In practice this can apply not only to the provision of architectural or technical drawings of an acceptable standard and sufficiently detailed to form the basis of an application, but to information regarding the fabric itself. CONTEXT 52
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=