7th February 2012, 06:46 PM
Someone asked about statutory obligations; so I've been thinking about what they are and are not, the better to put a case to the council.
To that end, the council's statutory obligations, as far as I know, are as follows. Note: this is for England, and other amendments may apply in some circumstances (e.g. for permitted development). Please do call me out on any errors or gobbledigook, and mention any omissions, as I'm tapping this out quickly.
The former PPGs15/16, PPS5, and the forthcoming NPPF are non-statutory policy, although the PPSs are 'material considerations' in the planning process (as directed in one or other of the amendments to the 1990 Act). Historically, councils have been quite good on requiring developers to spend money, but now some councils want to save their own money these policies suddenly don't look very firm (if only we'd got our Heritage Protection Act..). I would love it if anyone with better understanding of planning law could post a short authorititive summary as to why councils should have to enforce non-statutory policies (as opposed to just 'considering' them). Shan't hold my breath though.
Statutory legislation regarding terrestrial 'heritage assets' comprises the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979, and the Town and Country Planning Act (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas), 1990. These are concerned with statutorily designated assets, for which English Heritage are statutory consultees, so the council can argue that they don't need their own advisors for them.
For non-designated assets things get murkier, but also more hopeful. Under the main T&CP Act, 1990, councils were required to produce Local Plans that, among other things, detailed their specific policies, including heritage. Those policies are therefore legally binding. The Local Plans lapsed in about 2007 (after the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 superseded them*), although because the suceeding frameworks never got off the ground each council website has a list of policies that were 'saved' from the Local Plan and are still in use. As a result, Manchester Council will no doubt discover that they do have statutory obligations in respect of undesignated heritage assets after all, just like Councillor Melton did in the Bunnyhugger Saga last year.
The last bit of statutory obligation that Manchester Council have is to the Valetta Convention, which I confess I can't remember much about as when we signed it it seemed pretty similar to what we were already doing. Methinks it deserves a re-read. What would be really interesting though is not so much what it says shall be done in Britain, but under whose authority and threat of sanction. ...hmm...if no-one else takes that up (Kev?), I'll come back to it later.
There were some excellent responses to Melton's speech along these lines, which set out the legal basis for heritage work in Britain far better than I, and if tracked down again could just be forwarded to Manchester Council in the hope that they'll realise that if they get rid of their own advisors they will still have to pay for external ones (..and I think an appeal to their wallets will be more effective than to their conciences or the views of their electorate).
*They were to be replaced by Local Development Frameworks and Regional Spatial Strategies. If anyone saw any of these implemented I'd be interested to hear, but in any case Eric Pickles scrapped them unilaterally
To that end, the council's statutory obligations, as far as I know, are as follows. Note: this is for England, and other amendments may apply in some circumstances (e.g. for permitted development). Please do call me out on any errors or gobbledigook, and mention any omissions, as I'm tapping this out quickly.
The former PPGs15/16, PPS5, and the forthcoming NPPF are non-statutory policy, although the PPSs are 'material considerations' in the planning process (as directed in one or other of the amendments to the 1990 Act). Historically, councils have been quite good on requiring developers to spend money, but now some councils want to save their own money these policies suddenly don't look very firm (if only we'd got our Heritage Protection Act..). I would love it if anyone with better understanding of planning law could post a short authorititive summary as to why councils should have to enforce non-statutory policies (as opposed to just 'considering' them). Shan't hold my breath though.
Statutory legislation regarding terrestrial 'heritage assets' comprises the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979, and the Town and Country Planning Act (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas), 1990. These are concerned with statutorily designated assets, for which English Heritage are statutory consultees, so the council can argue that they don't need their own advisors for them.
For non-designated assets things get murkier, but also more hopeful. Under the main T&CP Act, 1990, councils were required to produce Local Plans that, among other things, detailed their specific policies, including heritage. Those policies are therefore legally binding. The Local Plans lapsed in about 2007 (after the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 superseded them*), although because the suceeding frameworks never got off the ground each council website has a list of policies that were 'saved' from the Local Plan and are still in use. As a result, Manchester Council will no doubt discover that they do have statutory obligations in respect of undesignated heritage assets after all, just like Councillor Melton did in the Bunnyhugger Saga last year.
The last bit of statutory obligation that Manchester Council have is to the Valetta Convention, which I confess I can't remember much about as when we signed it it seemed pretty similar to what we were already doing. Methinks it deserves a re-read. What would be really interesting though is not so much what it says shall be done in Britain, but under whose authority and threat of sanction. ...hmm...if no-one else takes that up (Kev?), I'll come back to it later.
There were some excellent responses to Melton's speech along these lines, which set out the legal basis for heritage work in Britain far better than I, and if tracked down again could just be forwarded to Manchester Council in the hope that they'll realise that if they get rid of their own advisors they will still have to pay for external ones (..and I think an appeal to their wallets will be more effective than to their conciences or the views of their electorate).
*They were to be replaced by Local Development Frameworks and Regional Spatial Strategies. If anyone saw any of these implemented I'd be interested to hear, but in any case Eric Pickles scrapped them unilaterally