IfA statement on PPS5 Planning

[BAJR]

Submitted by Kathryn Whittington on Thursday 01 September 2011
The Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) has today submitted its formal response to Government?s consultation on the draft National Planning Policy Framework for England. The Framework is intended to replace all the existing Planning Policy Guidance and Statements, including PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010).
Tim Howard, IfA Policy Advisor, said
[INDENT] ?We have a number of serious concerns about the current wording of the draft, which we think would result in a weakening of protection for the historic environment, and could lead to sites and buildings of archaeological interest being destroyed without adequate investigation, analysis and dissemination. Improvements we are seeking include

• greater recognition of the positive role played by the historic environment and the public benefits that it brings
  
• strong policies placing the management and protection of the historic environment at the heart of ?sustainable development? rather than subordinate to it
  
• clearer policies, in particular, dealing with neighbourhood planning and with undesignated heritage assets and minor harm to designated assets
  
• greater clarity as to the need for expert advice and the role of accredited experts acting in accordance with professional standards?
  

[/INDENT] Gerry Wait, Honorary Chair of IfA, stressed the concern that is felt by many in the archaeological profession about the treatment of undesignated heritage assets in the draft Framework
[INDENT] ?The National Planning Policy Framework is a very important document for archaeologists, not least because it provides a means to manage and protect the undesignated environment in the absence of legislative provision. We must ensure that the Framework?s policies in relation to undesignated heritage assets are fit for purpose.?
[/INDENT] During the run-up to the launch of the draft ministers repeatedly offered assurances that the NPPF was not intended to weaken protection. At the launch of the Southport Group report in July, Tourism and Heritage Minister John Penrose said that any deficiencies in the published draft that might lessen protection of the historic environment would be the result of misunderstandings, and would be put right ? ?and you can hold me to that!?
Peter Hinton, IfA Chief Executive, said
[INDENT] ?IfA and colleagues from The Archaeology Forum have welcomed the opportunity to make contributions to the draft. We are pleased that ministers, while committed to promoting growth through development, have felt able to offer such strong reassurances about the historic environment and about its study through archaeology. We have had a good working relationship with Government so far, and we are confident that this will continue during the remainder of the consultation period as we present our concerns and proposed solutions to ministers and officials.?
[/INDENT] The full text of IfA?s response can be downloaded here
For more details please contact IfA?s Policy Advisor, Tim Howard at tim.howard@archaeologists.net.

[gonetopot]

"During the run-up to the launch of the draft ministers repeatedly offered assurances that the NPPF was not intended to weaken protection"

...and you trust them! Sorry their 'assurances' are meaningless until backed by written legislation, they will SAY anything to avoid a public backlash. Am I the only one who feels the main organisation representing archaeologists should take a much stronger line on this, that is now where near as accomodating to the non-speak of politicians?

Peter Hinton, IfA Chief Executive, said........."We have had a good working relationship with Government so far, and we are confident that this will continue during the remainder of the consultation period as we present our concerns and proposed solutions to ministers and officials"

Thats because your concerns and proposed solutions never trouble the government to enforce meaningful, positive change towards archaeology!

Rant over

[Wax]

hummm not exactly strongly worded is it? Is there anyone of us who trusts the current government to give due regard to the historic environment?

I preferred the National Trust statement that refered to the planning policies of a "Banana Republic"

[BAJR]

REad the National Trusts views here:
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-c...anding.htm


For decades our planning system has protected much loved places from harmful development. The Government's reforms turn this on its head, using it as a tool primarily to promote economic growth instead.


Latest update:
Despite news that the Government has offered to talk through the proposed changes to the planning system, we’re not convinced they’re listening. Until Government can guarantee they’ll consider a new approach, we will continue to campaign hard and urge you to get involved.
We believe in growth – but not at all costs. Planning for people combines long-term growth with other important things like local character and space to breathe, tranquillity and beauty. We need a system that serves all our interests, from commerce to communities.





The National Trust is an applicant in the planning system, and also speaks up, for and against, development proposals put forward by others. We know from our own experience that new development can combine economic benefit with great results for people and the environment.

[Dirty Boy]

Did anyone see Newsnight last week (Thursday) or listen to Radio 4 in the morning last Saturday? Both Paxman and Humphreys were pressing the planning minister on whether he would change his mind following the consultation, and he wouldn't be drawn on the issue (typical politician behaviour!) Not particularly reassuring

The head of the National Trust was on Newsnight and I thought gave a very good account of himself, saying that developers were laughing their faces off, not believing what an easy time they'd get of it.

I believe the minister, did, however, say that he would invite the National Trust (and perhaps other interested bodies) to private meetings to discuss the framework. Have no idea if more "straight up" archaeological bodies such as EH and the IFA will be able to muscle in on this though.

The BBC has been reporting fairly extensively on this over the last week or two, saying that some backbench Conservatives and Lib Dems were not happy with the proposals, probably because they represent very leafy parts of the country. Maybe its an idea to target some of the individual backbench MP's with letter, sadly my MP is Labour :face-crying:, and will likely oppose the bill anyway (will write or visit anyway to confirm).

[kevin wooldridge]

Newspapers last weekend reported that both the National Trust(s) and EH haad raised concerns with the minister, but this was folllowed up on Monday by a story (in the Independent I think) that the NT had lost patience with the minister and wouldn't be attending any further meetings until the minister recognised their concerns should result in changes to the draft legislation....I think that is called a stand-off in street fighting parlance....

[Wax]

I cannot say that I support everything the NT does but they are one of the very few now openly standing up and facing off this Government over the planning policy review. If you follow the BAJR link above there is an online petition asking the Government to stop and rethink planning policy. I do not see anything similar from any other heritage body yet. Do correct me if I am wrong and point me to any similar petitions etc.

[deadlylampshade]

I agree with you Wax. The NT certainly seem to have got this one right (although I , too, have issues with them elsewhere...and not only their impossible on line job applications!)

[GnomeKing]

Certainly a time to pull together - issues with NT, EH, IFA etc. etc. can wait until we have secured sustainable heritage protection (or until those organisations become obstructive to that goal...)

[Dinosaur]

Not wishing to dish other archaeological organisations (yeah, I know, promise not to say that again, will ruin my image!) but the NT is a huge landowner with hundreds of thousands of members, and hence actually have some political clout, maybe the other organisations should get together behind them, since I seriously doubt the government actually gives a fig behind closed doors (whatever they may say in public) what tiny organisations with only a couple of thousand members and absolutely no economic impact like e.g. CBA or IFA thinks....