Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
On the buildings side it also seeks to reverse the outcome of the 'Shimizu judgement'. This led to conservation area consent only being required in cases of full demolition of buildings in CAs. In other words you were free to demolish most of a building without needing consent. See p23 para 18. A [u]good</u> thing.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
The use of article 4(1) directions to protect locally designated assets is also a step forward. Just to recap Barker was a report to the treasury - not a white paper - and was like a wishlist for big business. The white paper will hopefully lead to the stated improvements to the system via new legislation (and YES guidance). Troll, not sure which white paper you've been reading! Maybe you should take a bit longer before you slate it though. Would be keen to hear what people think of the Marine bit - as this ain't really my bag. Is it any good?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Very interesting!! The statutory HER thang could of course be a double edged sword as the paper doesn't suggest that these are located within existing local authority structures, only that authorities provide access.
Does this mean that we are about to see a whole load of shedding of existing HER's to private enterprise with local authorities buying into the provided service. I can see one or two consultancies doing very well out of this. (Whilst my original thought, that statutory HERs might provide the underpinning to maintain local authority archaeological services, a less than hopeful outcome).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I think the white paper is a reality check for archaeologists by virtue of what it does not mention.
I take the document to mean that there will be no formal designation for none nationally important sites unless there is a local designation.
This I think undermines the princiapals of PPG 16 and takes back to the pre 1990 system. Oh well it was nice while it lasted.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
2010 or 2011. Is there any coincidence that the chances of this white paper (or parts thereof) becoming "law" before this date are slim due to a certain large area of London earmarked for rapid (Olympics) redevelopment by 2012? Are we about to see an example of the "new streamlined planning process" in action in London over this? I think that this thread is likely to be the most singly important debating ring on BAJR ever.Whilst the White paper is rather large, ungainly and repetitive prompting long-slow reads...can I suggest perhaps coming up with a pros and cons listing here? Exactly what tangible changes are seen to improve the state of our heritage with the potential introduction of this paper as law? Conversely, what tangible negative impact will this potential law have? Lots of us on here from different dark corners of the industry...wot do ya fink?:face-huh:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Pros and cons? Well you could start with reading the Regulatory Impact Assessment which accompanies the white paper
http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B...rp_ria.pdf As for the sell off of local authority services you allude to Kevin I think this highly unlikely. The white paper alludes to capacity building in local authorities several times and the Atkins report found on the same page directly addresses this issue. I can think of ooh at least one local authority post grant aided by EH [:I]
Not sure what you mean Peter or why you see this as a retrograde step. As already stated the white paper explicitly supports local lists/designations and sets out methods for the protection and management of these assets. It also does nothing to undermine PPG16, indeed it only mentions it twice. The paper concerns itself with reform to Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and SAMs. Can you explain your reasoning?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
I agree Vulpes. It seems to me that any threat to changing the PPG16-related part of what we do in archaeology will come from changes in the planning system, not the Listed Buildings Controls and Scheduling laws which this deals with.
I can see this offering more archaeological sites statutory protection to be honest. All we have at the moment are one set of protected monuments which will become grade I's under the new system. This will give us a chance to add more to the list as grade II* and II over time. For a long time, English Heritage have followed a policy of scheduling a "representitive sample" of classes of monuments (ie if you have eight forts of national importance, they only scheduled the best six). This should now mean we can at least protect the other two with one of the lower grades, instead of nothing which is what we have at the moment.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Thankyou Vulpes-I have read it.What do subscribers here see as pros and cons? :face-huh:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Yes,
Having reread the document I am unclear as to how the protection system will be different to that in force prior to PPG16 with only SAMs and other sites mentioned in the local plan being protected.
PPG16 protected all sites from development not those that were designated. PPG 16 to a degree also protects unknown sites and sites that are poorly understood - the evaluation.
We also now have a degree of protection for "archaeological priority areas", sites mentioned in the SMRs and similar.
My concern is that I thought the new systen would include none nationally important sites monuments like grade II buildings but it doesnot.
I would have hoped as the white paper is all about heritage and the planning system that there would be clear references to development control and non protected sites. We thus now have to wait and see what the new guidance says and the new planning act. It would have been neater to have a paragraph which said something like.
"The vast majority of archaeological sites do not currently enjoy protection by designation. They are protected from development by virtue of the fact they are a material consideration in the determination of a planning application".
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Where in the white paper does it suggest that the principles of PPG16 are going to be removed Peter? I'm not sure we're talking about the same PPG16 either as in practice it doesn't 'protect' the majority of archaeological sites, but rather facilitates their destruction albeit through controlled excavation and 'replacement by record'.
Grade II buildings are already protected from demolition as are buildings in conservation areas - the proposals in the white paper strengthen this protection and also set out ways in which 'local list' (not grade II) buildings can be similarly protected.
See CKs post above.
