C O N T E X T 9 9 : M A Y 2 0 0 7 35 the wider economic and community interest, without compromising the interests of future generations. Retail development There should be no watering down of the current emphasis on locating retail development in existing centres. Many areas are still recovering from earlier out-of-town developments. Existing local businesses and the community they support are damaged by out-of-town or edge-of-centre retail development. The Barker report’s suggested removal of the needs test for retail development is irresponsible, potentially damaging the very effective regeneration of many towns and cities that has taken place over the past decade. The emphasis of retail policy should be more explicitly on reinforcing existing city and town centres, supporting the needs of local communities and addressing global warming. Community engagement Any changes to the planning system should maintain or increase the ability of local communities to influence their local areas. More effective community engagement leads to better outcomes. There is an urgent need to raise local government officer skills in community engagement and to communicate the value of early public participation to developers, not least in avoiding later delays. The requirement for statements of community involvement to be checked for soundness by the Planning Inspectorate should be retained. However, if this requirement is removed, there should be a statutory requirement for consultation on statements of community involvement with key external bodies (for example the Planning Advisory Service and Planning Aid Service). Steps also need to be taken to ensure that local communities are not excluded from negotiations on Section 106 obligations. Historic buildings and areas The report is very weak on the historic environment. Of particular concern is the report’s failure to recognise the role played by older areas in helping towns, cities and rural areas to modernise and adapt to changing trends. The flexibility, variety and range of rentals in older areas can accommodate uses that would be difficult to fit into newer development. In particular, historic buildings and areas have a role in accommodating small businesses, creative industries and innovation. Other benefits include: 1 Regeneration of inner cities and traditional industrial areas. 2 Refurbishment rather than redevelopment greatly reduces waste of embodied energy and landfill. 3 Areas that have developed incrementally better support mixed use and tenure. 4 Older areas cater far more effectively for the needs of minority groups, including BME communities, the poor and the young. 5 Older buildings and areas are an essential factor in the adaptation of towns and cities to modern needs, including accommodating innovation, and creative and high-tech industries. 6 Well-maintained historic environments are able to attract higher-value investment and better-paid employment. 7 Development involving historic places often places greater emphasis on using skilled human resources, and less on scarce physical resources. It therefore tends to create better-paid employment in construction. It is useful to reflect that the incremental development of an area, retaining the best of the old, tends to deliver more effective and sustainable development and economic growth than more comprehensive redevelopment. The regeneration of historic buildings and areas represents one of the most sustainable forms of development and comes closest to balancing the needs of economy, community and environment. The IHBC would have liked to see far greater recognition in the report of the social, economic and sustainable development benefits of historic environments, and proactive measures to promote heritage-led regeneration. Proactive proposals to address the above agenda could include: 1 Heritage economic regeneration zones – lower-rate VAT, connected to area grant schemes, focused on listed buildings and conservation areas or buildings on local lists, especially in areas of high deprivation indices, inner cities, declining towns and low-demand housing areas. 2 Lower-rate VAT for other beneficial works to historic buildings. 3 A national programme for developing building conservation skills in the construction industry, particularly focusing on areas of high deprivation. 4 Accessibility – simplifying conservation areas, simple and standard protection, removing the need for the current complex and bureaucratic Article 4 procedure. 5 Capacity-building and support for local voluntary groups to obtain funding and deliver projects to improve their areas. 6 Development of much stronger and closer links between CABE and English Heritage, recognising the often close integration of design and conservation in delivery of services by local authorities. 7 Separation of English Heritage property management into a separate organisation, allowing English Heritage to focus on its key planning and regeneration functions. 8 Providing a new focus for English Heritage on delivering economic and physical regeneration through area grant schemes and other proactive measures. 9 Placing duties on local authorities to undertake buildings-at-risk surveys and develop action plans for at-risk buildings. 10 Requiring local authorities to employ skilled and qualified design and conservation teams or to buy in such skills. Not all of these are matters for the planning white paper. They would also involve the current review of heritage protection legislation, amendment to the General Permitted Development Order, review of best value performance indicators and changes to fiscal provisions. Conservation areas and heritage protection reform The proposed changes should not stand apart from the changes associated with the Heritage Protection Review and the forthcoming heritage white paper. Conservation areas are becoming the Cinderella of the system. The white paper should not miss the opportunity to respond to this, most easily by imposing a simple body of agreed
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=