Heritage news

CLA HERITAGE NEWS

last updated 18 March 2010

It should be well worth reading back through this page, because it aims to cover all the key current heritage issues in England and Wales relevant to CLA members.  The content is updated where appropriate and still relevant. 

Return to CLA heritage homepage

As we had expected, the Heritage Protection Bill was one of several Bills left out of the Queen's Speech.  But the Government has given strong undertakings on its continued commitment to the Heritage Protection Review, much of which can be implemented without legislation, and in particular to publish a draft of the promised new Planning Policy Statement (PPS) for heritage before Easter 2009 (note at 23 April 2009:  though no announcement has been made, this is apparently now delayed until the summer).

The CLA will continue to lobby for the Bill itself, because important gains for members like formal rights of consultation and appeal depend on this.  But in fact other parts of the Heritage Protection Review are more important than the Bill.  A good new heritage PPS would have a very beneficial effect on actual planning and consent decisions on the ground, as would new English Heritage guidance and training in many areas, provided it is based on English Heritage’s sensible and pragmatic policy of “Constructive Conservation”, in which everyone works together to give heritage a viable future.  We have welcomed the explicit commitments made by DCMS and English Heritage to press ahead with all of these, and are looking to work closely with English Heritage and others, and will keep a careful eye on progress and on detail, reporting developments on this page.

POTENTIAL SIMPLIFICATION OF THE PLANNING APPLICATION PROCESS:  THE KILLIAN PRETTY REPORT (25 NOVEMBER 2008)

The report of the Killian Pretty Review has just been published.  The Review, triggered by much lobbying from the CLA and others over several years, especially work we did on planning and heritage with the Better Regulation Executive, looked at ways of simplifying the planning application process.  The final report confirms that "the system isn't working well enough", which mirrors CLA findings and member complaints, and makes 17 recommendations, aimed at taking many applications out of the planning system entirely, and at simplifying those which remain.  Specific heritage controls unfortunately were outside the Review's terms of reference, but implementation of its findings would simplify heritage-related planning applications.  Government ministers confirmed their intention to implement the key recommendations.  Some probably require primary legislation;  it is obviously too late to feed these into the Planning Bill, which has just received Royal Assent, so this may take time.

SECRETARY OF STATE'S SPEECH AT HERITAGE COUNTS LAUNCH (31 OCTOBER 2008)

Andy Burnham, the relatively new Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, made his first major public speech on heritage at the launch of Heritage Counts, the annual heritage survey published in October each year (the CLA sits on its steering committee).  The speech showed some degree of personal commitment to heritage, and an awareness of and support for "constructive conservation", the conviction that the long-term future of heritage must be based not purely on preservation as found but also on the acceptability, indeed desirability, of properly-managed change - the core of the CLA's heritage policy.  The speech unsurprisingly contained no promises on the timing of the Heritage Protection Bill;  rumours suggest that it is now unlikely to be in the Queen's Speech on 3 December, but the Secretary of State confirmed that work on the Heritage Protection Review - most of which is not dependent on the Bill - would continue in any event.

NEW ENGLISH HERITAGE GUIDANCE ON EU LEADER PROJECTS (30 OCTOBER 2008)

LEADER is one of the key ways of delivering EU Rural Development funding.  It funds community-led rural regeneration and conservation projects, so it cannot be used to fix your private house or barn, but has been used for example in the physical conservation and interpretation of Northumbrian hill-forts, conservation and land management advice for landowners in the Weald of Kent, the repair of a windmill, and skills training in Norfolk.  English Heritage has produced new guidance on LEADER projects and how they work, with examples.

VICTORY ON "LISTED" BUILDINGS:  GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT  (21 OCTOBER 2008)

The Government's response to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee's rather critical report on the draft Heritage Protection Bill (see 31 July and 16 June below) was published on 21 October.  Following lobbying by the CLA and others, it says that the Government is abandoning the very confusing change of terminology in the Bill from the long-familiar "Listed Building" to "Registered Heritage Structure".  This is extremely welcome.  Otherwise, however, the response generally rejects proposed changes - both good and bad - to the Bill.  The Government has also failed to accept that there is a crisis in local authority conservation provision, still continuing to  claim - despite a huge amount of evidence over many years - that reliable figures are not available.

The Response makes no reference to the Bill being in the Queen's Speech on 3 December, but does still seem to be promising publication of a Bill and the new heritage Planning Policy Statement by the end of the year.   If the Bill goes forward in 2008-09, it would come into effect in 2010-12.

NEW ENGLISH HERITAGE GUIDANCE ON LEAD THEFT (15 OCTOBER 2008)

As the epidemic of lead theft continues, English Heritage has issued new guidance.  This suggests several ways of deterring thieves.  Where there have been repeated thefts, it contemplates replacing stolen lead with other materials;  these may be less attractive, and may not necessarily be cheaper, but they are less likely to be stolen.

EVEN MORE DISCOURAGING ENGLISH HERITAGE GUIDANCE ON ENABLING DEVELOPMENT  (1 OCTOBER 2008)

Enabling development is development which is contrary to normal planning policy but put forward as a way of saving a threatened heritage asset.  English Heritage has now published the latest version of its guidance on enabling development.  Shorn of the photographs and case studies in the previous version, it now looks long and theoretical (and a change in the title from 'heritage assets' to 'significant places' is symptomatic of a growing English Heritage policy of writing its 'high-level' policy documents as if from an international ivory tower). 

Much more importantly, even more than the previous version it sets so many hurdles in the way of enabling development that it is hard to see that an honest owner or developer would ever dare to embark on it.  The purpose seems to be not to protect buildings at risk - for which enabling development can, in a minority of carefully-chosen cases, be the solution - but to protect English Heritage from criticism.  Even in this limited aim it may fail:  the unscrupulous will find ways through, as they always have, building estates of 'executive homes' while failing to repair the heritage asset, and buildings will crumble as they are sold on from one speculator to another, priced out of the reach of genuine repairing purchasers, but in future there may be few successful cases to set against the failures.  As a further example, the guidance apparently offers an opening for owners of 'historic entities' (cases where there is a public interest in keeping houses or land or other assets together in their current ownership), but these seem to be so rigidly defined - much more so even than in tax law - that it is hard to think of relevant cases which could qualify.  We pointed all this out in advance, but our detailed critique of the draft seems to have been largely ignored. 

In general terms, our advice to members now would have to be not even to consider embarking on enabling development unless both the local authority and English Heritage are in favour, and there is support (rather than opposition) from the local community, and even then this is a route fraught with difficulties and expense and only for the brave and determined.

THATCHING STRAW  (26 SEPTEMBER 2008)

There has been a long-running and sometimes acrimonious debate between English Heritage and local planning authorities, on the one hand, which usually insist on exact like-for-like replacement of thatch on listed buildings, and also specifically on the use of long straw, and many thatchers, who feel that thatching is a craft which has always moved on and that tight rules are just freezing the thatching practices of the 1980s.  A crucial issue for owners is that long straw costs far more than alternatives, and usually has a much shorter life, so that the overall cost can be several times higher.  A further problem is a now-chronic shortage of long straw:  once a by-product of almost every harvest, this is now a very specialist product, less and less is planted, and successive harvests fail.

The official English Heritage view seems to be that "your roof can just rot away until long straw is available, and the cost is your problem not ours'.  The National Society of Master Thatchers has produced a £10 guidance book (see its website).  It would be useful to have CLA member feedback on this;  please email jonathan.thompson@cla.org.uk.

VAT ON REPLACING uPVC WINDOWS IN LISTED BUILDINGS  (22 SEPTEMBER 2008)

Until now, replacing uPVC (plastic-framed) windows in listed buildings with appropriate timber windows was not generally accepted by HMRC as an 'alteration' for VAT purposes, so you paid VAT in full on the cost.  In general, only changes which altered the size of the window opening were accepted as 'alterations' qualifying for zero-rating.

VAT Notice 708 now says explicitly that "replacement of uPVC double glazing with copies of original wooden windows for aesthetic reasons" is an alteration, so that this will be zero-rated (provided, as always with alterations, you have obtained listed building consent in advance).  This may, though as so often this is unclear, also apply to most replacement windows more in keeping with the building.  Moreover, if you have done this in the last three years, you can go back to the supplier and ask for a refund.

THE FUTURE PROTECTION OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES  (2 SEPTEMBER 2008)

The Department for Communities and Local Government in April launched a consultation on the future protection of World Heritage Sites (of which there are now 17 in the UK, many rural, including for example Stonehenge, the Ironbridge Gorge, and the 'Jurassic Coast' in Dorset and Devon).  The proposals include new English Heritage guidance, a proposal to make WHSs Article 1(5) Land, ie curtailing some permitted development rights as in National Parks (this has been implemented from 1 October 2008), and the creation of 'buffer zones' around WHSs "where appropriate".  In general the guidance is reasonably sensible and proportionate:  it refutes the absurd but often-quoted idea that WHSs "have no protection", and does not add a whole raft of new regulation.  Our response generally supports the proposals, with some reservations.

ENGLISH HERITAGE ENERGY EFFICIENCY WEBSITE  (2 SEPTEMBER 2008)

English Heritage has formally launched its climate change and energy efficiency website www.climatechangeandyourhome.org.uk, designed primarily for owners of traditionally-built houses.  This is still a work in progress and much of the information is fairly basic, but there are (under Further Information) links to relevant publications, for example the guide Energy Conservation in Traditional Buildings.  The information can (to some extent) be customised via the home page, so that it is relevant to the date and type of your house.  EH intend to develop the site further over time, especially as results become available from ongoing research projects.

NEW GUIDANCE TO FIRE AUTHORITIES ON HERITAGE  (28 AUGUST 2008)

CLG has issued new guidance to fire authorities on the protection of heritage.  While saving life obviously remains the highest priority, it stresses the need for the Fire & Rescue Service to protect buildings and contents from fire and water damage, and to liaise with owners.  This may be helpful in discussions with the F&RS.

VICTORY ON NEW PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT FOR HERITAGE  (28 AUGUST 2008)

The Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) has, after lengthy lobbying by the CLA and others, now agreed to produce a new Planning Policy Statement (PPS) for heritage, to replace the current PPG15 and PPG16, and importantly to do this within the same timescale as the Heritage Protection Bill, so that the two can come into effect in a co-ordinated way.  PPSs are highly significant because they set a national planning framework, substantially determine regional and local planning policies, and often affect actual planning and heritage decisions on  the ground.  The CLA is involved in a stakeholder group influencing the initial draft.  The new PPS is due to go out to public consultation before Easter 2009.

CLA RESPONSE TO CONSERVATION AREAS CONSULTATION  (1 AUGUST 2008)

The Government in a consultation has proposed major changes to the Conservation Area regime, in new clauses added to the draft Heritage Protection Bill.  Some, like the need for consultation before Conservation Areas are designated, and the abolition of the separate Conservation Area Consent, are welcome.  We also welcome in principle the reversal of the 1997 Shimizu case (which potentially made it possible to demolish important parts of buildings without consent), but our response points out that as drafted the new clauses would require planning permission for almost any demolition, even of something of no importance, which would cause an explosion of often unjustifiable planning applications.  The CLA response also expresses robust views on a new obligation for planning authorities to turn down almost any planning application in a Conservation Area unless the applicant can prove that it "enhances" the area, an attempt to improve Conservation Areas which in our view may actually have the opposite effect.

CRITICAL SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE DRAFT HERITAGE PROTECTION BILL  (31 JULY 2008)

The House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee, which is scrutinising the draft Heritage Protection Bill (see below), today published its Report.  Like the CLA, it is particularly critical of the Government's claims ("astonishing") that all is well in the heritage consent system.  It quotes the CLA evidence on this and other issues.  The Select Committee is also unhappy that many elements of the Bill and the rest of the new system have not yet been drafted for consultation.

VICTORY ON LOCAL MEMBER REVIEW BODIES  (30 JULY 2008)

We were very concerned by the proposals in both the Planning Bill and the Heritage Protection Bill to remove the right of appeal for some or most planning and listed building applications, replacing this with review by a 'Local Member Review Body' which would have been advised by the same officers who took the original decision, so that judge, jury, and appeal court would have been more or less the same thing.  After sustained lobbying by the RTPI, CLA and others, the Government has now withdrawn this proposal.

CLA SELECT COMMITTEE EVIDENCE ON THE DRAFT HERITAGE PROTECTION BILL  (16 JUNE 2008)

The CLA has submitted evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee for Culture Media and Sport, which in July 2008 is scrutinising the draft Heritage Protection Bill (see 2 April below) .  We welcomed the Bill in principle, but pointed out that it has little chance of improving the heritage protection system on the ground unless either £50m-£100m a year of new resources are provided - which of course will not happen - or significant changes are made to the proposals so that the system can work better without a lot more money being spent. 

FORTHCOMING ENGLISH HERITAGE GUIDANCE ON INSURANCE  (21 MAY 2008)

English Heritage and the RICS are updating their joint guidance on insuring historic buildings , which dates back to 1994. This is an important issue for heritage-owning members, and the CLA was among stakeholders invited to comment on a draft.  Our response suggests a number of changes to the draft, including more detailed treatment of ways in which owners can minimise insurance costs.  Note:  As at January 2010, this guidance has still not appeared.

TIMES LETTER - FARM BUILDINGS UNDER THREAT  (30 APRIL 2008)

A CLA letter in The Times today examines some of the solutions for redundant farm buildings.  It followed up a previous letter from SAVE Britain's Heritage (which made valuable general points but concentrated on one specific case in which consent had been granted for demolition of a listed granary, controversial because experts disagreed on whether the building could have repaired without rebuilding it almost from scratch).

ENGLISH HERITAGE "CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES" LAUNCHED  (24 APRIL 2008)

Conservation Principles is - in theory - a document of great importance, a statement of the fundamental principles to be used by English Heritage in all its advice and decision-taking, and above all it was supposed to be a statement of EH's very sensible policy of "Constructive Conservation".  This - see EH's 2005-10 strategic plan - is about everyone working together to manage change of the historic environment in a pragmatic way, "a new philosophy of conservation to ensure sensible, consistent decisions". 

Unfortunately, EH adopted a different agenda for Conservation Principles, academic and abstract.  The CLA commented extensively on two unhappy drafts in 2006 and 2007.  Simon Thurley, Chief Executive of EH, in his speech tonight launching the final version referred to our criticism having "made us [EH] stop and think again".  Sadly, although they may have thought, they have not changed the document much, because the final version still has the abstract and meaningless language of "place" and "value" which make Conservation Principles all but unintelligible.  It is highly unlikely to help people "to understand our decisions more easily", and still less likely to promulgate the "Constructive Conservation" philosophy in EH or in local authorities.  It is a massive opportunity lost to move away from experts having sterile arguments about "protecting" historic buildings from change to a new world in which everyone co-operates in ensuring that historic buildings are respected and have a viable and healthy future.

The document is not entirely useless:  it does define conservation as "the management of change", not as preservation, and there are bits which members could quote in support of proposals, for example the conditions, set out on pages 58-60, under which alteration and new work "should normally be acceptable", though the points are so qualified that it it is hard to draw any real conclusion.  Conservation Principles is therefore a major disappointment, certainly not the first thing most people will turn to for guidance.  EH promises a 'family of guidance notes to sit under Conservation Principles';  this may be better, but we are not optimistic!

The CLA response to the 2007 draft is on this website.

MEETING WITH SIMON THURLEY  (9 APRIL 2008)

CLA President Henry Aubrey-Fletcher and Heritage Adviser Jonathan Thompson on 9 April met Simon Thurley, English Heritage's Chief Executive.  In many areas (especially rural policy) EH is doing a good job, and this was a generally friendly meeting, but we disagreed strongly on two important issues, the desirability of academic conservation jargon in EH's heritage guidance, and the indefensible absence of any anti-theft safeguards whatsoever in EH's online Heritage Gateway project.

HERITAGE PROTECTION BILL LAUNCHED  (2 APRIL 2008)

The Heritage Protection Bill was launched today, as a draft for Parliamentary scrutiny.  The final version is unlikely to be published before 2009.  The English version can be seen here and the version for Wales here.  The Bill's history goes back to 1999, when the then Minister of Culture invited the heritage sector to suggest legislative changes. Years of consultation produced several papers, most recently the Heritage White Paper on which we commented in 2007 (see below). 

The Bill if passed will replace 100 years of incremental heritage legislation. The most obvious change is that buildings, archaeology, parks, gardens, battlefields, World Heritage Sites (and cars, aircraft, ships, and wrecks) will all be covered by a single new ‘Heritage Register’, and everything (including ‘listed building’) is given a different name.  For the first time, owners (and a variety of others) must be consulted formally before heritage can be put on the Register, and will have statutory rights of appeal.  For buildings and archaeology, a single new ‘Historic Asset Consent’ (HAC) will be required for changes which ‘affect their special interest’ (for archaeology, this may imply less bureaucracy than the current system, where even like-for-like repair needs formal written consent). HAC will however not be needed for parks, gardens, battlefields, or World Heritage Sites, which will still as now be controlled by the planning system. Under the Bill there will be greater delegation of decision-taking to local planning authorities (LPAs), at least in England. 

Otherwise the Bill’s proposals are not very different to the current system. The Bill is not supposed to increase or decrease heritage protection, but detailed analysis suggests that in fact there will be substantial net increases in protection, or at least in bureaucracy.

The Bill looks ambitious. But, subject to a number of points of detail (some significant), the ‘new’ system bears a strong similarity to the existing system, and any reader of the Bill as drafted is unlikely to think the new system either ‘simple’, or ‘unified’. But it is probably, on balance and so far as we can tell at this stage, somewhat beneficial for heritage, and (because of the new consultation and appeal rights) for CLA members.

At a more fundamental level, however, the Bill may just rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. The real problem with heritage protection is not inadequate law; it is the difficulties and costs owners face on the ground when they need consent to change historic buildings to make them viable and relevant in the future. Those problems in turn are largely the result of a crisis in conservation resourcing in the LPAs who actually take most of the decisions. This has a variety of dire consequences: regulators who are demotivated and overworked, and often not skilled or experienced enough to take the sometimes complex decisions to allow change which competent and sustainable heritage management requires; unnecessary costs and delays for owners; redundant buildings decaying because their owners think they cannot get consent to alter them; and (despite draconian penalties) an apparent epidemic of unauthorised work to listed buildings (because LPAs do not have resources to help or to enforce, and many owners are either ignorant of the law or, rationally but illegally – not CLA members of course – decide not to tangle with ‘heritage bureaucracy’).  These are problems the Bill does little about and may even worsen, because it increases LPA workload by delegating more decisions to them.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME FOR ENGLAND  (1 APRIL 2008)

Though in the main not specifically targeted at heritage as such, this is the most important source of funding for private owners of heritage.  Further CLA guidance can be found here.

MEETING WITH WELSH HERITAGE MINISTER  (14 MARCH 2008)

CLA Wales Chairman Ross Murray, Director Julian Salmon, and CLA Heritage Adviser Jonathan Thompson met the Minister for Heritage, Rhodri Glyn Thomas, and Cadw on 13 March.  This useful meeting discussed in particular Cadw grant schemes, which are to be extended to cover conversions of traditional farm buildings and problems with the ability of the Tir Gofal agri-environment funding scheme to fund the repair of traditional farm buildings.

NEW APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LISTED BUILDING AND PLANNING CONSENTS  (14 MARCH 2008)

Listed building consent applications and most planning applications in England from 6 May 2008 must be made using a new Standard Application Form, available at www.planningportal.gov.uk.  Although paper submission remains possible, electronic submission (ie over the internet) is encouraged.  The application and new validation requirements are explained in Circular 02/2008.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CLIMATE CHANGE  (2 MARCH 2008)

English Heritage has done a lot of work on these subjects in the last year or more;  the CLA has been involved in a by-invitation conference in late January and in commenting on draft guidance notes.  Apart from a paper Climate Change and the Historic Envirionment, not much of this has been published so far, and publication is being delayed by potential Building Regulations changes, but new guidance when it appears will be at www.helm.org.uk/climatechange.

MINERALS ISSUES  (2 MARCH 2008)

English Heritage has recently published new guidance on Mineral Extraction and the Historic Environment and on The Treatment of Disused Lead Mine Shafts.

10 DECEMBER 2007: VICTORY ON ABOLITION OF EMPTY RATES RELIEF FOR LISTED BUILDINGS

A consultation launched in July proposed the 'modernisation' (ie abolition) of empty rate relief for all listed buildings liable for business rates. This followed the budget announcement (and an Act was rushed through Parliament before the summer) that empty business property will be liable to full rates after 3 months (6 months for industrial buildings), from April 2008.  This is a tax increase disguised as an economic efficiency measure (rates were supposed to be a tax on occupation, not ownership, and CLA members may be puzzled by the assumption implicit in empty rating that owners are making lots of money by deliberately leaving buildings empty and must be taxed into letting them).

The consultation proposal would have meant that owners of listed buildings used for business purposes which become empty would be liable for full rates after (usually) 3 months. The consultation claimed that a blanket exemption for empty listed buildings only (given that empty unlisted buildings will be taxed) was 'hard to defend'. A particular CLA concern is that the proposal would strangle before birth the conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to business use, which both saves many historic buildings and creates jobs. These conversions are often high risk - who can be sure that market demand is there - and the knowledge that full business rates would be payable if tenants prove elusive implies that such buildings - the largest single category of listed buildings at risk - are likely to remain unconverted and crumbling.  The CLA response attacked empty rating, attacked the 'evidence' used to justify rating listed buildings, and in particular argued for the continuation of full relief for listed buildings. 

The Government has just announced that the relief for listed buildings will continue permanently.  The Government could easily have forced this measure through, so this is a somewhat surprising victory which must have been won on the arguments.

5 NOVEMBER 2007:  ENGLISH HERITAGE/CADW SCOPING STUDY ON THE ROLE OF HERITAGE IN NATIONAL PARKS

EH and Cadw are planning research on the importance of heritage in National Parks.  The CLA response to the scoping study concentrates on the unsustainability of the current National Park management model, based as it is on prioritising access, preservation, and biodiversity, and not on economic or social sustainability.  Not only is this often not capable of preserving heritage, but the resulting lack of affordable housing and job opportunities are often breaking up traditional communities as well as threatening long-established farming activities.  [5 November 2008:  the Scoping Study is complete in draft but has not yet been published - see the CCRI website].

29 SEPTEMBER 2007: NEW ENGLISH HERITAGE GUIDANCE ON FLOODING AND FMD

English Heritage has produced new guidance on prevention and on clearing up after flooding, and after foot & mouth disease.

17 AUGUST 2007: CLA HERITAGE RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING WHITE PAPER

The Planning White Paper (PWP), launched by CLG (the Department for Communities and Local Government) on 21 May following the Barker Review (see below), contained many sensible proposals but had little to say about heritage, even though heritage protection is a key part of the planning system and 30 per cent of planning applications have heritage implications.

The PWP said that "the planning system is too bureaucratic, takes too long, and is unpredictable" (1.18, 6.9) and proposed that it should be more efficient, predictable, and transparent (1.37), "ensuring that the...evidence required for...planning decisions is proportionate" and "encouraging positive and proactive planning" (7, first box). All this applies to a greater extent to the heritage consent system than it does to the rest of the planning system, but unfortunately the PWP just referred readers to the Heritage White Paper, which (see below) has little to offer to solve these specific problems or to answer the challenges set by Barker.

The CLA's general response and a specific heritage response (see p15 of the same document) are both on this website.

1 AUGUST 2007: HOME INFORMATION PACKS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

The much-criticised HIPs are in force. English Heritage have published three advice notes on HIPs, or more specifically on the Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) the packs need to include. EPCs are a crude tool designed for modern buildings, and in many cases they overestimate the energy needs of historic buildings and give them artificially poor ratings. EH (and the CLA) are concerned that this may encourage/force owners to carry out works which are unnecessary and/or actually damage the building. If you are thinking of selling and wondering whether you should (say) put in more insulation first, these advice notes may well be helpful.

14 JUNE 2007: ACCESS STATEMENTS IN WALES

Following the requirement for listed building and planning consent applications in England to be accompanied by Design and Access Statements from August 2006 (see below), most Welsh applications from 30 June 2007 need to be accompanied by Access Statements (this presumably does not imply that design is unimportant in Wales!) Guidance is to follow but in the meantime the draft guidance can be seen here.

14 JUNE 2007: THE SUCCESS OF FUNDING SCHEMES FOR TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS - BUT IS THIS NOW JUST HISTORY

English Heritage and DEFRA have just published a second analysis of the success of the former agri-environment and rural development schemes in saving traditional farm buildings and walls from dereliction. The second report A study of the social and economic impacts and benefits of traditional farm building and drystone wall repairs in the Yorkshire Dales National Park follows an earlier report on the Lake District. Both show not only a major contribution to landscape value but also the creation of rural workspace and employment on a substantial scale, multiplier effects through the local economy, and the sustaining of craft skills. The reports are available from the HELM website , alongside further material on farm buildings, or hard copies can be obtained from 0870 333 1181 (both are available in summary and full versions).

Unfortunately, funding for the successor Environmental Stewardship and Rural Development schemes is far from assured, so this success story of rural regeneration may be stillborn. A Natural England/English Heritage report Tracking Change in the Quality of the English Landscape published on 14 June 2007 shows that historic walls and agricultural buildings are deteriorating in many parts of rural England.

12 JUNE 2007: EXTERNAL LIGHTING OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS

English Heritage has recently published a guide on External Lighting of Historic Buildings.

5 JUNE 2007: CLA RESPONSE TO HERITAGE WHITE PAPER

The long-awaited Heritage White Paper for England and Wales was launched on 8 March, after seven years of consultation and debate in which the CLA was heavily involved (and the CLA President, David Fursdon, sits on the Steering Committee).

The White Paper includes proposals to simplify the currently complex system of heritage protection, unifying the Listed Building and Scheduled Monument regimes and creating a single Register of most or all heritage assets, recognising the need for partnerships with owners, defining historic assets more accurately, and giving formal rights of consultation and appeal.

Inevitably we have concerns about details, the timescale, and especially the ongoing lack of resourcing in the local authorities which will actually operate the new system, but the White Paper is nonetheless a significant step forward. Our main concern is what is not in the White Paper: this is a DCMS (the Department for Culture Media and Sport) document, and without substantive involvement from CLG (the Department for Communities and Local Government) it seems unlikely to resolve the extensive problems in the heritage consent system and especially in local authorities, or therefore to be successfully implemented.

The CLA response is on this website. New primary legislation is needed. Even assuming this happens, a new regime (a revision of the planning guidance PPG15/16 is also needed, but is not promised) is unlikely to be fully in place until 2011-12 at the earliest.

2 MARCH 2007: ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN HISTORIC BUILDINGS - FORTHCOMING ENGLISH HERITAGE GUIDANCE

The CLA has just met English Heritage at a senior level to discuss this in some detail. Many owners of historic buildings have difficulty in obtaining consent for energy efficiency measures, most of which are discouraged by the current guidance in PPG15 (see Frequently Asked Questions) and in the more recent Building Regulations and Historic Buildings. Encouraged by the CLA and many others, English Heritage is now drafting a family of 40-50 new advice notes, which should clarify these issues. These should be available in September to December 2007. In general the approach seems to be sensible and pragmatic, though there are some areas where we may well disagree wth them (they seem determined to continue the almost complete ban on double glazing, even where windows are beyond repair and have to be totally replaced). There will certainly be no carte blanche for every energy efficiency measure, but the new guidance seems to be founded on commonsense and particularly on economics. For example, they argue (this may need further testing, and might change) that solar panels at current costs do not make economic sense, so the question of putting them on historic buildings really doesn't arise (though if determined you may be allowed to put them in a garden rather than on a roof). Similarly they argue that double glazing of existing windows is hardly ever economically viable, but the new guidance is likely to be more encouraging of secondary glazing than the current guidance. The main message will be that the best place to start is usually with loft insulation and draughtproofing (£1,000 spent on these may well produce a higher return than £5,000 spent on double glazing), rather than with ground source heat pumps or microgeneration. But they intend also to produce guidance, perhaps later, on (for example) when ground source heat pumps or hydro power do make sense, and on how to implement them.

Our main concern is that the guidance should spell out, in order of effectiveness, and in straightforward and practical terms, what owners can actually do, and in ways which will then actually happen in practice, and not be blocked by blanket refusals of listed buildng consent. The initial indications are reasonably promising, but we will be seeing most of the guidance in draft form and commenting as necessary, and then providing links to it from this website as soon as it is published.

7 DECEMBER 2006: NEW GUIDANCE ON LISTED BUILDING PROSECUTIONS PUBLISHED

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published new Best Practice Guidance on Listed Building Prosecutions. This concentrates on prosecution rather than enforcement (for the distinction, see Frequently Asked Questions). Much work to listed buildings is done illegally, either deliberately or through ignorance of the law. The CLA does not in any way condone this, and clearly a law is pointless if those who breach it are never prosecuted. We are also of course very supportive of the protection of historic buildings in principle, provided this is achieved in an proportionate and efficient way. But the current consent system does not (see below, passim ) meet those requirements. Law-abiding owners find that it is in many cases preventing changes which ought to be allowed, and causing delays and increased costs. Others are increasingly ignoring it (and, in most cases, not being prosecuted). Change is needed, but any greater propensity to prosecute must be matched by a much more efficient and proportionate and co-operative consent system (again, see below), and prosecutions must happen only where there is a genuine and strong public interest case for prosecution, or the situation will get even worse.

5 DECEMBER 2006: BARKER REVIEW OF LAND-USE PLANNING FINAL REPORT PUBLISHED - HERITAGE RECOMMENDATIONS

The economist Kate Barker was asked by the Treasury at the end of 2005 to examine the scope to improve the efficiency of the planning system. We strongly believe that there is scope to improve the heritage protection and consent parts of that system, which too often obstruct the changes essential if historic buildings are to adapt and survive. The Barker Review Interim Report , published in the summer, acknowledged (section 4.25) that there is a problem.

Since 30 per cent of planning applications have heritage implications, we argued in further heritage-specific CLA evidence that the Review should make specific recommendations on heritage. The Review team listened to the CLA on this, as in many other policy areas, and Recommendation 4 (p160) in the Final Report , just published, emphasises "the critical importance of viability and proportionality, and...facilitating modernisation that does not damage the historic or architectural significance of buildings". Section 1.24 on p26 elaborates on this, using forms of words not far removed from those in the CLA evidence. Recommendation 20 (p167) suggests that more resources need to be put into local authority conservation services. The CLA was invited to make a response to the Final Report.

Other evidence submitted by the CLA can be found in the planning and policy sections of this website.

13 NOVEMBER 2006: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SELECT COMMITTEE

The Government's response to the Culture Media & Sport Select Committee's scathing report (see 20 July 2006 below) on Government heritage policy is much as the CLA predicted, rejecting or ignoring most of the Report's conclusions. For example, the Department for Culture Media & Sport says that English Heritage (despite six years of cuts which in particular have halved in real terms the already tiny grant support given to private-sector heritage) is funded at a "sufficient" level, and there is a strong implication ("will be given due consideration, alongside other priorities") that future changes will not be in a upward direction. More importantly, there is nothing which suggests that the crisis in local authority conservation provision (which makes it difficult to obtain consent to make necessary changes to listed buildings) will be tackled by the government in any meaningful way, other than by asking English Heritage, with its ever-falling budget, to do a job which should be being done by the Department for Communities & Local Government.

While heritage is supposed to be a DCMS responsibility, its interest in heritage issues to date has been, the Committee said, "cosmetic" and "unconvincing". Now that DCMS is so totally focused on delivering the 2012 Olympics, it seems unlikely that that will change for the better.

3 OCTOBER 2006: NEW ENGLISH HERITAGE GUIDANCE ON TRADITIONAL FARM BUILDINGS

English Heritage has just published Conversion of Traditional Farm Buildings: A guide to good practice, to add to the recent more general policy document Living Buildings in a Living Landscape, published in July. Both are available from English Heritage or from the HELM website . Although these are not quite as positively encouraging of carefully-considered change to redundant farm buildings as the CLA had been suggesting, they are much less restrictive than the previous policies. There is, sensibly, much help with understanding a building before deciding what to do with it, and many photographs and case studies. The same website also has further guidance on caring for historic buildings and archaeological remains. See below for the equivalent Welsh guidance.

10 AUGUST 2006: NEW CADW GUIDANCE ON TRADITIONAL FARM BUILDINGS

Cadw has issued useful well-illustrated new guidance Traditional Farm Buildings in Wales: Care and Conservation , and Caring for Historic Monuments on the Farm , to add to their existing publications on Coastal Heritage, Historic Landscapes, Lost Farmsteads, Small Rural Dwellings, and the more practical 2004 guidance on Converting Historic Farm Buildings. All can be obtained from Cadw or downloaded from the Cadw website (see publications >> conservation publications).

10 AUGUST 2006: DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENTS

All applications for listed building consent submitted after 10 August 2006 need to be accompanied by a Design & Access Statement, by virtue of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. There are, as with much regulation, some positive reasons for this, but it is also yet another layer of bureaucracy. To help to reduce the extra work involved, we have prepared a guidance note on this for members .

3 AUGUST 2006: "WHO PAYS FOR HERITAGE" - CLA MEMBER HERITAGE SURVEY REPORT PUBLISHED

The Survey found widespread dissatisfaction with the heritage consent system and the lack of grants. For private owners (who own the vast majority of heritage) the listing of buildings seems to be almost all downside. The roots of the problem seem to be partly philosophy - buildings being protected against all change, even where a viable use of the building is impossible without it - and partly the lack of resourcing of conservation in local authorities. This is the first-ever survey of the owners of listed buildings, but many of its findings are supported by other research, especially the Institute of Historic Building Conservation/English Heritage Local Authority Conservation Provision Survey of 2003.

The CLA Member Heritage Survey Report is available here, and there is an accompanying article on page 34 of the August 2006 issue of the CLA magazine Country Landowner & Rural Business.

20 JULY 2006: HOUSE OF COMMONS SELECT COMMITTEE FOR CULTURE MEDIA AND SPORT - HERITAGE INQUIRY REPORT PUBLISHED

This Committee (whose role is to examine the effectiveness of the Department of Culture, Media & Sport) spent eight months in 2005-06 on an Inquiry into heritage, largely in reaction to the slow pace of the Government's Heritage Protection Review, and in advance of the Heritage White Paper.

The CLA submitted written evidence to the Inquiry, and CLA President David Fursdon and Heritage Adviser Jonathan Thompson appeared as witnesses. The Committee reported on 20 July 2006. Its comprehensive Report:

• Is very critical of Government and DCMS support for the historic environment, or rather the lack of it. DCMS is supposed to be the lead department on heritage, but the Committee finds DCMS's interest in heritage issues only “cosmetic”, its reasons for the continuing cuts in funding “unconvincing”, and its approach to the Heritage Protection Review “less than energetic”.
• Finds the continuously-falling funding of English Heritage “clearly insufficient”.
• Finds that English Heritage grant funding to private owners has fallen substantially over the last ten years (probably by about half in real terms, compared with construction costs, and English Heritage's overall grants budget by even more).
• Acknowledges the vital role of the private owners who own two-thirds of heritage, and supports the CLA's case that the welfare of historic buildings depends mainly on long-term and viable economic activity.
• Rejects the idea that owners should have a statutory duty to care for historic buildings.
• Confirms the CLA's view that many local authorities are failing to resource properly their key responsibilities for the historic environment (today, not just potentially in the context of Heritage Protection Review changes).

Its main recommendations relevant to CLA members are:

• The Government should get on with the Heritage Protection Review, because the present protection regimes are too complex, confusing, and opaque. It must say in the White Paper exactly what it is going to do and when.
• DCMS should get its act together now, strongly advocating to the Treasury the case for increased funding, based on the historic environment's role in the economy and tourism, in regeneration, and in levering other funding, and on the social value of heritage to the whole population, as well as those who visit paid-for sites or events.
• Proper funding for local authority conservation services, allowing them to employ better-skilled staff and handle applications in a timely and efficient manner.
• Substantial increases in funding for English Heritage, especially to allow higher budgets for grants to private owners.
• VAT relief on historic building repair costs, by extending the Listed Places of Worship scheme firstly to charities and then to private owners where clear public benefit can be demonstrated.
• A limited scheme of tax relief on historic building maintenance costs for private owners.
• Investigating the use of grants to encourage preventative maintenance work
• Buried archaeology should be protected primarily by agreements and financial incentives, rather than the blanket ban on any continued ploughing advocated by some archaeological groups.

This is an encouraging report which backs up what the CLA and others have been saying about the disparity between the detailed and confusing heritage protection regimes on the one hand and the lack of real Government support on the other. But it has to be said that most of the recommendations involve spending significant sums of money, and the battle for this, much of which needs to be conducted around the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, is only beginning.

You can download from here the Report and evidence , and Marcus Binney's comment in The Times .

Return to CLA heritage homepage