Over Taylor Biggs

Others concluded that despite Government confirmation that the current legislation was not fit for purposes in current times, heritage issues are insufficiently important for inclusion in a less frenetic legislative programme.

Following the abandonment, English Heritage still reckoned that a good number of the Review recommendations could still be given effect to without new legislation.  However, many involved in heritage issues disagree, pointing out that key items need new legislation.

The Review has been criticised from the outset, for being dominated by conservation interests, with only limited involvement by developers and those who practice in the field, dealing with day-to-day problems.  It was felt there should have been a better balance between preservation and those wanting development to spread benefits more widely and generating economic growth, rather than simply balancing the conflicting interests of the public and those of a developer or investor seeking a return.

Preserving this status quo was regarded as an easy option, avoiding the more pressing demands of a full debate on how heritage issues are properly to be determined.

Reflecting the tensions encountered in this area a Director of a Historic Building Advisory Service (HBAS) believes the change of approach in the supply of accurate information can facilitate obtaining Planning Permission and avoid the perceptions of interminable delay, the depth of emotion from some objectors and the increased costs that these generate.

Writing in the Estates Gazette, Robert Hill of HBAS has reviewed the normal reaction to issues of "heritage" or "historic interest" that arise with Planning proposals. 

He suggests that frequently Local Planning Authorities' reaction demonstrates a frustration about the lack of information supplied by applicants that, in turn, follows an inadequate understanding of the heritage aspects that are present. 

In some cases the Local Authority's staff may be insufficiently experienced in the evaluation of heritage information.  Opposition groups may be relying on inadequate information that leads to heritage protection being seen as a blocking tactic.  Some applicants are not willing to disclose information in case it falls into the hands of objectors.

Two separate Planning Policy Guides cover heritage aspects. PPG15 deals with Planning and the Historic Environment and PPG16 covers Archaeology and Planning.  They emphasise the need to consider the full effects of the Planning Application on the heritage aspects of a site. 

The applicant needs to demonstrate an awareness of the effects that the proposal might have and supply a specific level of supporting information.  This usefully may include a Heritage Audit, which might be supported, where appropriate, by an Historic Building Survey, followed by a detailed analysis, an archaeological evaluation and a summary of the historical background and how earlier development has progressed.

This should include details of the level of protection or mitigation that will need to be applied, relative to the importance of the site.  They might include an explanation of design development and why some items are to be kept or lost.

In essence, this amounts to an Historic Environmental Impact Assessment (HEIA), similar in many ways to Environmental Impact Assessments for polluted or contaminated sites.  EIAs are now a well recognised feature of such an application.

Mr Hill believes that the information supplied by an HEIA more than justifies its cost.  He reckons that  if the required level of information is provided at the outset as part of the Planning Application, the period required for pure Planning consideration will be reduced significantly.  He argues that Planning objections will be fewer because the facts will be supported by accurate information and likely therefore to reduce the risk of the application being rejected. 

He points out that pre-development obstructions will be removed, which should enable works to begin more quickly, reducing the potential impact of interest charges and will advance development returns.

In summary, Mr Hill believes that what he describes as the little extra work required will be repaid.  The information made available can be used throughout the planning process and for the benefit of the project, presumably outweighing the risk that information required during the process to meet specific objections or complaints will be more costly than an earlier comprehensive review of all the heritage aspects.

Whether developers agree to an initial and potentially expensive Review before issues are more defined or their potential impact is more obvious, remains to be seen.