PPS5 - Information REquirements for Applications

[BAJR]

HE6.1 Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of
the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting
to that significance. The level of detail should be proportionate to the importance
of the heritage asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential
impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset. As a minimum the
relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage
assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where
necessary given the application?s impact. Where an application site includes, or is
considered to have the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological
interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an
appropriate desk-based assessment and, where desk-based research is insufficient
to properly assess the interest, a field evaluation.

PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 5 | Development management

In accordance with HE6.1, an applicant will need to undertake an assessment of significance to an extent necessary to understand the potential impact (positive or negative) of the proposal and to a level of thoroughness proportionate to the relative importance of the asset whose fabric or setting is affected. Given the obvious burden of the process, local planning authorities will need to be careful to only ask the applicant for what is genuinely needed to satisfy the policy requirement. Although there is no limit on the sources of information that might be consulted or the exercises that might be carried out to fulfil that requirement, the most common steps an applicant might take are as follows. The first three steps will be undertaken in almost every case.

Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide

It goes on to list the almost mandatory requirements - which one assumes (hate that word) is after the potential has been flagged - or is it the requirement of the developer to check in every case?

1.Check the development plan, main local and national records including the relevant Historic Environment Record, statutory and local lists, the Heritage Gateway, the NMR, and other relevant sources of information that would provide an understanding of the history of the place and the value the asset holds for society.
2.Examine the asset and its setting.
3.Consider whether the nature of the affected significance requires an expert assessment to gain the necessary level of understanding.

There is a further vague reference to 'Specialists'

59. Engagement with the relevant local authority specialists can be particularly helpful in developing an understanding of significance and in identifying the level of information needed to support an application.

Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide

Could it be clarified again, who these people are? Is there a requirement that they are actually archaeologists? Or can anyone have a go? It would be presumptive that only a person who understood archaeology could advise on archaeology (or is that Heritage). Otherwise I may as well advise on tree planting - I am a specialist ain't I ?

I become a tad concerned when I read this

Expert advice: general points
74. Local planning authorities, developers and other stakeholders with an interest in the historic environment will often find it useful and/or necessary to seek the advice of appropriately qualified and experienced individuals or organisations. This may be, for example: to inform the plan-making process, to provide advice on the significance of a heritage asset, or to undertake an archaeological survey.

Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide

So who is 'curating' this... who from the council is checking and understanding. I would have liked to see implicit requirement for heritage professionals within the council.

[Unitof1]

Yes hosty that is precisely how it reads. No more curators. Anybody developing a site comes directly to me. I prepare two letters. One says no further archaeological work required and charge ?75 and one saying further archaeological work required detailing the work and charge nothing. I give the client the choice of which to submit with their application.

[destroyingangel]

I'm making the radical leap of faith that - "local planning authorities" = "curators"

[Unitof1]

but is it that curators = HER

[Dirty Boy]

"necessary to seek the advice of appropriately qualified and experienced individuals or organisations"

Wording in official documents is often left vague, as very specific language can essentially hamstring unforeseen interpretations later, requiring redrafting of the document.

Reading this, a council would have to show that it has used appropriately qualified staff - which would essentially mean someone with knowledge of planning and archaeology, with some form of experience, hence probably curators. A council wouldn't be able to draft in "Bob" from the local job centre as he wouldn't have the "appropriate qualifications".


Its difficult not to get caught up with vague interpretations in legal type documents, but often you need to look at general descriptions rather than specific "job titles". PPS5 was never going to specifically mention a "curator"

[brazier]

Just a few questions. I have had a look through both the statement and the practice guide (does the latter also have legal force?). In Annex 2 of the Statement the HER is described as (typically) not only being an information resource etc, but also "together with a dedicated staffing resource", so would that not mean any checking of the HER over "assessments of significance" also (legally?) obliges the developer to check with HER officers too? Of course, that is on the assumption every HER has staff to answer queries on it - are there contrary cases?

[Dirty Boy]

It depends how the council offers access to the HER. I remember Norfolk has a version online, so checking that would probably be enough (although I think there was a disclaimer stating that it wasn't necessarily the most up-to-date version).

Also, I don't know PPS5's legal status as its not statutory law and how "enforceable" it is - its only a statement. I heard tale of someone trying to get developers to fund post-ex work in the credit crunch but the CPS said as PPG16 wasn't statutory law it suit didn't look particularly worth pursuing in the courts.

[Talisien]

Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide Para 73 refers to using appropriate expertise and Para 74 should be read in that context. I suspect there is going to be a period where all of this takes time to settle down, much as when PPG 15 & 16 were introduced. The vagueness of much of the EH guide will also provide scope for much debate (argument?) when WSI are being written, especially as defacto scheduling of specific heritage assets could potentially occur if '[t]heir relative importance nevertheless means that they are treated as if they are designated assets and are therefore subject to the policies in HE9.1 to HE9.4 and HE10 (HE9.6)." [Para 109]. This will depend upon who determines equivalence!

[desk monkey]

The PPS is a material consideration and a statement of policy, which means it has to be taken into consideration when applications are determined. The Practice Guide specifically states that it is not policy- and does not prescribe a particular methodology but 'may' be 'material' in planning decisions. This is a very good thing as the PPS contains (I hope) everything needed to carry through existing practice into the future. The Practice Guide is mostly OK but some of it - eg the idea that WSIs should be set in stone prior to determination and the proposed condition wording, drops the ball a little. However as this part of the document is 'guidance' rather than policy it should leave room for alternative practice to be agreed and develop.

Regarding the phrases 'relavant local authority specialists' and 'appropriately qualified and experienced individuals ' these are both useful. To deal with the breadth of the 'significance' referred to in the PPS its clear that the LPAs will need access to a range of specialists - as now not just archaeologists but building conservation professionals.

Some of this discussion seems to move towards how 'legally enforceable' the PPS will be - well PPG16 was never really 'legally enforceable' regarding undesignated archaeology - the only trully meaningful 'legal' controls in the historic environment apply to Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings where breaches are criminal offences subject to statutory control- planning policy is just enforceable in the terms of planning system - ie if you have a planning condition and you breach it (for instance by not following the WSI and producing a report) the applicant will not have their condition discharged and ultimately suffer the grief of trying to sell property with undischarged planning obligations (ever tried buying a house with a dodgy restrictive covenant?). So nothing has really changed there either.

[BAJR]

Thanks for that Desk Monkey... a very useful post. So what you are saying is nothing has actually changed.