13th September 2009, 12:40 PM
The Questions:
Questions on which we would particularly like your views:
1. Does the PPS strike the right balance between advocating the conservation of
what is important and enabling change?
2. By adopting a single spectrum approach to historic assets, does the PPS take
proper account of any differences between types of asset (eg. are archaeological
assets adequately covered)?
3. In doing so, does the PPS take appropriate account of the implications of the
European Landscape Convention, and of the cultural dimensions of landscapes
designated as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty?
4. Are the policies and principles set out in the PPS the key ones that underpin
planning policy on the historic environment, or should others be included?
5. Do you agree that it is the ?significance? of a historic asset that we are trying to
conserve?
6. Does the PPS comply with devolutionary principles with regard to what is
expected at regional and local levels?
7. Does the PPS strike the right balance between the objectives of conserving what
is significant in the historic environment and mitigating the effects of climate
change?
8. Does the PPS make it clear to decision-makers what they should do, and where
they have more flexibility? Are there any risks or benefits you would like to
highlight for the historic environment sector?
9. The draft PPS highlights the importance of ensuring that adequate information
and evidence bases are available, so that the historic environment and the
significance of heritage assets are fully taken into account in plan-making and
decision-taking. At the same time we are concerned to ensure that information
requirements are proportionate and do not cause unnecessary delays. Are you
content we have the balance right? If not how would you like to see our policy
adjusted? (Policies HE8 and HE9 are particularly relevant to this question.)
10. In your opinion is the PPS a document that will remain relevant for at least the
next 20 years? Do you see other developments on the horizon that have
implications for the policies set out in the PPS?
11. Do you agree with the conclusions of the consultation stage impact assessment.
In particular, have we correctly identified and resourced any additional burdens
for local planning authorities? Is the impact on owners/developers correctly
identified and proportionate to their responsibilities?
12. Do you think that the policy draft PPS will have a differential impact, either
positive or negative, on people, because of their gender, race or disability? If so
how in your view should we respond? We particularly welcome the views of
organisations and individuals with specific expertise in these areas.
Questions on which we would particularly like your views:
1. Does the PPS strike the right balance between advocating the conservation of
what is important and enabling change?
2. By adopting a single spectrum approach to historic assets, does the PPS take
proper account of any differences between types of asset (eg. are archaeological
assets adequately covered)?
3. In doing so, does the PPS take appropriate account of the implications of the
European Landscape Convention, and of the cultural dimensions of landscapes
designated as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty?
4. Are the policies and principles set out in the PPS the key ones that underpin
planning policy on the historic environment, or should others be included?
5. Do you agree that it is the ?significance? of a historic asset that we are trying to
conserve?
6. Does the PPS comply with devolutionary principles with regard to what is
expected at regional and local levels?
7. Does the PPS strike the right balance between the objectives of conserving what
is significant in the historic environment and mitigating the effects of climate
change?
8. Does the PPS make it clear to decision-makers what they should do, and where
they have more flexibility? Are there any risks or benefits you would like to
highlight for the historic environment sector?
9. The draft PPS highlights the importance of ensuring that adequate information
and evidence bases are available, so that the historic environment and the
significance of heritage assets are fully taken into account in plan-making and
decision-taking. At the same time we are concerned to ensure that information
requirements are proportionate and do not cause unnecessary delays. Are you
content we have the balance right? If not how would you like to see our policy
adjusted? (Policies HE8 and HE9 are particularly relevant to this question.)
10. In your opinion is the PPS a document that will remain relevant for at least the
next 20 years? Do you see other developments on the horizon that have
implications for the policies set out in the PPS?
11. Do you agree with the conclusions of the consultation stage impact assessment.
In particular, have we correctly identified and resourced any additional burdens
for local planning authorities? Is the impact on owners/developers correctly
identified and proportionate to their responsibilities?
12. Do you think that the policy draft PPS will have a differential impact, either
positive or negative, on people, because of their gender, race or disability? If so
how in your view should we respond? We particularly welcome the views of
organisations and individuals with specific expertise in these areas.
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Thomas Rainborough 1647