34 C O N T E X T 9 9 : M A Y 2 0 0 7 IHBC response Two opportunities not to be missed The IHBC has made the following comments on the proposed planning white paper and Barker II: The IHBC recognises that, while the 2004 Planning Act is still bedding down, recent evidence on global warming in particular warrants urgent action. Clearly, there are also recommendations in the Barker II and Eddington reports, as well as the issues recognised in the Stern report, to take into account. However, the institute is concerned with the rate of legislative change and the impact it is having on already stretched local authority planning departments. Barker II The institute recognises the value of some of Barker’s recommendations. However, generally there is concern over the report’s very thin evidence base. The report appears to be based on an unsupported belief that planning harms competitiveness, despite there being a vast body of evidence to the contrary. The IHBC supports some recommendations, such as simplification of use classes in respect of live-work development and encouragement of greater use of pre-application discussions. The latter needs to be accompanied by safeguards to ensure decisions are not being taken at an early stage, without opportunity for communities to be involved. However, the report fails adequately to address global warming; demonstrates limited understanding of the nature of spatial planning; fails to recognise the relationship between economic development and the quality of the built environment; is weak on community engagement; and almost completely fails to address the historic environment and its role in delivering economic growth and improving competitiveness. The IHBC considers a more progressive and wide-ranging view is required, with the following key themes: addressing global warming; place-making for people; sustainable development, regeneration and economic development; and promoting social inclusion and sustainable communities. Spatial planning and economic development The Barker report does not address the relationship between the qualities of the urban or rural environments and economic performance. There is a demonstrable relationship between the quality of an area’s environment and its ability to attract investment, maintain its population, and improve its competitiveness. Areas with a high quality environment attract higher-value investment, betterpaid jobs and are often characterised by population growth. In contrast, areas with poor environments, and areas that allow poor-quality new development, are often locked in to cycles of poor economic performance. It is not just coincidence that the towns and cities that have enjoyed the most dramatic physical and economic transformations in the past 5–10 years are those that have placed matters such as public realm improvement, urban design and heritage-led regeneration at the heart of their economic development and regeneration strategies. While Barker II focuses on the process of town planning, it does not address the proactive, place-making side of planning activities. Many planners, conservation officers and urban designers are actively involved in obtaining funding, developing partnerships, and formulating and delivering regeneration projects. The Ropewalks and Speke areas of Liverpool are prime examples where enlightened planning, regeneration and conservation officers have helped deliver dramatic social, economic and environmental improvements, in partnership with entrepreneurial and visionary developers. The planning white paper needs to address this proactive side of planning and in particular to develop stronger links between the planning process and regeneration funding streams. For example, the IHBC believes that the lack of integration between housing market renewal and planning has impeded the delivery of the government’s housing objectives and has led in some instances to unsustainable and inappropriate proposals. Quality of planning applications The poor quality of many planning applications is one of the most common causes of delay during in the planning process. This is often due to lack of knowledge or appreciation by developers of the necessary skills required in their professional teams to design good quality, sustainable development. Lack of design and conservation skills is a common problem. Place-making skills and training The white paper needs to recognise the importance of place-making skills in addressing global warming, delivering sustainable economic development, and creating sustainable communities. There should be a statutory requirement on local planning authorities to employ staff with a basic set of place-making expertise, including urban design, architecture, building conservation, ecology and nature conservation. The IHBC strongly supports the suggested introduction of mandatory training for elected members involved in making planning decisions. Such training should include awareness of urban design, the value of nature and building conservation, and the importance of engaging communities in the planning process. Presumption in favour of development The presumption of the planning system should favour the wider social, economic and environmental good rather than any cruder presumption in favour of development, where the development plan is indeterminate. There should only be a presumption in favour of development that benefits IHBCmembers send comments to hpr@ihbc.org.uk THE HERITAGE WHITE PAPER Membership Consultation Here it is at last! This heritage white paper for England and Wales has had a long gestation period.We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to our members and partners who have spent somuch timehelping it to emerge. The white paper promises to givemore clarity to how we work. I have every expectation that almost all of us will warmly welcome almost all these changes. The lobbying for resources is already underway: these changes simplywill notwork in the ebbing financial tide that the public sector could face. As our presidentDavid Lovie wrote in the IHBC’s press release, it is time towalk thewalk aswell as talk the talk. While this is awhite paper – a statement of government policy and intended legislation – it is also a paper still tinged with green. It asks a further three questions about conservation areas, pre-application discussion and certificates of immunity.The conservation area issuewill be particularly vital for us. Itwould be tragic if ‘joined-up conservation’ resulted in linking buildings and archaeology, but created a greater distancebetween them andhistoricurban areawork.Wemayhave some unfinished business here. This outline of the issues and opportunities has been produced very quickly to stimulate the debate within our institute.We do not claim that it is comprehensive.Please read thewhite paper itself and its linked documents, and join in the discussions within your branches, in the institute as a whole, and in the wider world. The political spotlight is about to be turned on to ourwork.Wemust be ready for it. JohnYates IHBCChair CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORIC BUILDING CONSERVATION
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=