30 C O N T E X T 8 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 5 IHBC responses A catalogue of missed opportunities The IHBC response to the ODPM consultation paper ‘Changes to the Development Control System’. The IHBC broadly welcomes the general thrust of the proposed reforms to the development control system and agrees that the planning and consent regimes should be coordinated and made as efficient as possible. Consequently, the institute supports the proposal to control repeat applications but considers that the opportunity to exercise similar control over twin-tracking, with its attendant aggressive impact on negotiations and burden on an already stretched appeal system, should have been taken. Equally, support is given to the proposed duty to respond to consultations, regional planning bodies as statutory consultees and the economic impact reports as mechanisms to make the system more effective. Clearly, the duration of permissions and consents must be the same and the strong arguments in favour of reducing this to three years are recognised. However, many projects involving listed buildings and conservation area consents take longer than this to reach commencement stage. In those circumstances the consent would need renewal, involving further work for both the applicant and the conservation officers within the local planning authority. The IHBC remains concerned at the often inadequate provision of conservation experts within local planning authorities as revealed in the joint report commissioned with English Heritage Local Authority Conservation Provision in England. It is clear from the experience of the IHBC membership that planning delivery grant monies are not being used to address the current conservation staff and skills shortages, but are being directed at resourcing the quantified BVPI targets within development control and policy planning service areas. Concern is now being expressed from many quarters about the impact this is having on the quality of design outcomes, the proper stewardship of the heritage and the missed opportunities for community-based regeneration. Conservation and design teams within local planning authorities are best placed to address these critical matters.Yet, in a non-fee-earning area of the planning service, they are too often perceived by chief officers as a burden on the budget and are, therefore, those who are most under-resourced and, in extremis, vulnerable to cuts.The ultimate burden of this loss is borne by developers and the community as opportunities to enhance the built environment, renew run-down areas and revitalise the local economy go unrealised. Consequently, the IHBC invites the government to carry out the research necessary to substantiate this resourcing shortfall, quantify the scale and scope of the problem, and steer planning development grant awards towards a targeted solution.The ODPM has already consulted on proposed heritage-based BVPI targets, some of which have been successfully piloted. This approach may ease the current situation and build in capacity that will enable the successful delivery of the proposed shorter duration for consents and permissions. What’s behind the government’s baffling attitude? A letter from the IHBC to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on heritage regeneration and funding. The historic environment has a key role in the regeneration of cities, towns and rural areas all around the UK, especially in helping to transform previously failing areas into high-value sustainable communities. Historic buildings have been used to attract funding and accommodate a range of employment, residential, cultural and community facilities.The most successful economic transformations of recent years have taken place in areas which have adopted strong design and conservation policies as part of their economic development strategies. Given this crucial role in delivering urban renaissance and sustainable communities, it is baffling that the government, and the DCMS in particular, is affording the historic environment such low priority and is diverting funds away from heritage management and regeneration. While appreciating that planning and regeneration experts are located in other government departments, it is essential that the DCMS embraces new urban practices and takes on a more proactive role in delivering economic and physical regeneration. The IHBC is concerned that some recent announcements and proposed changes are harmful to economic development and likely to have very destructive consequences for the historic environment.These concerns are: • Clause 7 of the Lottery Bill currently being considered by Parliament would allow funds to be reallocated from one lottery distributor to another. This would mean that funds allocated by the Heritage Lottery Fund to townscape heritage initiatives and other projects would be at risk, removing the certainty that is essential for successful project delivery, compromising match funding bids, harming developer and business confidence and undermining partnerships between the public, private and voluntary sectors.This clause demonstrates no understanding of the realities of delivering economic and physical regeneration. • Clause 8 of the Lottery Bill would result in the interest on lottery distributor’s accounts being redistributed. This would lead to a £15 million reduction in the Heritage Lottery Fund’s thinly spread resources. • The English Heritage funding settlement represents a reduction in funding in real terms.The DCMS needs to appreciate the important role of English Heritage in supporting heritage-led regeneration and providing expert advice to local authorities to support their planning and regeneration functions.The reduction of funding is unsustainable and harms the effectiveness of the organisation at a crucial time given the range of current programmes for housing renewal and physical regeneration. The impact of the above measures and funding cuts will be especially devastating in areas suffering from market failure, where there is a particular reliance on financial and technical assistance. The IHBC would urge the DCMS to consider the historic environment against a wider economic and social context. There is a need to better appreciate the needs of the private sector, regeneration practitioners, project managers and others involved in the delivery of beneficial schemes. The government should be creating the conditions for entrepreneurial activity and growth, and adopting a facilitating approach to those delivering beneficial projects, not promoting regressive, antiregeneration measures such as those outlined above.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=