SMR/HER

[Curator Kid]

If the Heritage Protection Register and the HER were one and the same, the end result would have to be that some sites on the list would be legally protected, and others wouldn't/couldn't be. The Government's idea is to reduce confusion, so to have the single findspots of post-medieval metal detector finds or pottery sherds dug up in 1876 on the same list as castles and barrows which have been through a critical process of professional assessment and evaluation, wouldn't make much sense. The HER/SMR is only an index to a much larger resource (the original source material), so in many cases doesn't carry the detail to be able to create a detailed assessment of a particular features' importance or question the accuracy of the original reference. Remember too that an HER can also include things that don't physically exist, such as the results of a negative archaeological evaluation, which would be impossible to include on a list that was acting as the basis for statutory legal protection regimes.

Personally, I don't believe there's as much confusion in the current system as the Government thinks there is, and I'm not convinced all of the review process is necessary, but parts of the system are very old and do require an overhaul (Parks and Gardens have no statutory protection for example, regardless of their grading). I reckon it's far better to use the HER as a basis for constructing a detailed seperate list of protected sites and structures which the planning system (and its non-archaeologically trained or historic building expert planning officers) can easily grasp and work with, than introduce confusion into the process with multiple gradings on the same list, some of which warrant statutory legal protection and some of which don't.

[kevin wooldridge]

Query for Curator Kid: Do you think it is likely then that there will be provision for funding for both a Historic Protection Register and a HER? Or will the statutory requirements of HPR inevitably shade HERs into the background. I ask because I totally accept your reasoning for the separation of the two, but fear that that will not convince the purseholders.

Our Host's original query was for a form of explanation that could sell HERs to non specialist Scottish politicians. Whilst there may be some scope to indulge the holistic aspirations of promoters of HERs, at the end of the day it seems to me there is always a sharply perceived difference amongst politicians, between statutory obligations and 'luxury' spending (especially when you are trying to justify next years tax burden).

[Curator Kid]

As far as I understand it, the Government commitment to statutory status for SMRs/HERs inherently includes a commitment to provide funding. With statutory status comes the right for local authorities to legitimately request funds to aid towards maintainence. I suspect that one of the reasons statutory designation has been slow to arrive despite various noises in this direction over the past few years, is that the central funds to do this haven't been made available. At the moment, SMRs are largely provided for through the largesse of County Councils, English Heritage grants for officers, and the belief by most planning authorities that they should provide one for their planners - not that they have to. Pressure from local Societies and the public helps with this too. The assessment process and unification of statutory lists shouldn't deprive SMRs of funds, because to be frank, SMRs don't actually have any proper "funds" to be deprived of.

Statutory status for SMRs should be right up there at the top of any lists you care to make of things the Government should be doing to improve the state of the Historic Environment. On a seperate note, your point about Politicians' perceptions of statutory obligations and "luxury" spending is probably pretty accurate. It's mostly been the older County Archaeologists who've spent the last 30-odd years making sure that SMRs are maintained in some form or another, despite numerous cuts in spending, resources, reorganisations, abolitions and the like. As a demonstration of how precarious the situation has been, my County only formally adopted its own SMR three years ago - and it's only from this point has the County made a proper commitment to provide funding for an SMR officer - the previous years were a catalogue of grant applications, reviews, financial juggling and neglect. Other remain in this position, so we should be doing our best to push for the change we have been promised.

[sea-surgeon]

I was tested on SMR at uni -but only as far as what SMR stood for.

[monitor lizard]

The two are such separate entities that I'm not sure if they will be really confused.

The Hertiage Protection Register is more a combination of the existing Listed Building descriptions and Scheduled Ancient Monument descriptions than an HER. This will be expanded to be a more useful description of the salient points about a listing or scheduling, so that management is made easier. Things like mangement agreements and conseration plans can be appended.

HERs, which are at present largely a curatorial tool, will remain so. Of course, getting the public to use them is becoming a major focus and will be a requirement.

I believe (although may well be corrected) that the HPR will be held by English Heritage, whereas HERs/SMRs will still be held and maintained by the local authorities.

In this scenario, the funding comes from 2 separate strands - one central gov't (DCMS and ODPM) and one from the counties or equivalent.

ML

[Curator Kid]

Hi ML,

To add to what you said, the new unified list is supposed to have a "local section", which will "...contain a record of all conservation areas and other local designations such as local lists and registers." EH are supposed to look after the national bit of the Register, whilst the local authorities will be responsible for the local bit for their areas. So not confusing in any way whatsoever...

There is a statement in the "Review" that says "It is recognised that this measure has potentially serious resource implications for government.", following the conclusions that SMRs should be statutory and standards should be consistent. I take this to mean that Government have recognised that they will have to pay when SMRs achieve statutory status.

[1man1desk]

From the point of view of the general user, presumably everything on the HPR will also be listed in the HER (as is usually the case at present with LBs, SAMs etc).

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[historic building]

The other point which is proposed as part of the heritage protection review is for planning applications relating to scheduled monuments to be handled by planning authorities, rather than by EH. As part of having a single list of designated assets it is necessary to deal with them in the same way.

As someone who works with listed buildings and has seen the attitudes of planners to these I find it deeply worrying.

[archae_logical]

quote:Originally posted by historic building

The other point which is proposed as part of the heritage protection review is for planning applications relating to scheduled monuments to be handled by planning authorities, rather than by EH. As part of having a single list of designated assets it is necessary to deal with them in the same way.

As someone who works with listed buildings and has seen the attitudes of planners to these I find it deeply worrying.

Knowing what planning authorities can do when left to their own devices, I too find this very worrying.

Maybe Councillors should take a course in the importance of archaeology and heritage before they can be elected

E

[1man1desk]

quote:The other point which is proposed as part of the heritage protection review is for planning applications relating to scheduled monuments to be handled by planning authorities, rather than by EH. As part of having a single list of designated assets it is necessary to deal with them in the same way.

In fact, all planning applications are dealt with by planning authorities now. But, if the development affects a Listed Building or a SAM, then as well as planning consent you need to apply for Listed Building Consent or Scheduled Monument Consent.

LBC is (usually) dealt with by the planning authority, unless a Grade I building is affected. SMC is dealt with by central government (DCMS), not English Heritage, although DCMS have to ask EH for advice and they usually take it.

If we have a single, unified list, then all applications would be dealt with in the same way as Listed Buildings. Local Authority decisions would be constrained by whatever set of rules are put in place by the new legislation. If the new list has a grading system, it would be possible to cherry-pick the top grades and refer those in every case to central government, as at present.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished