Conservation area appraisals in CPA ? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

The killer is in defining "up to date" appraisal as "within past 5 years" - which leaves most LPAs with a v low performance - typically less than 20%. (We had a 10 yr target but review all areas in a 15 to 20 yr period). The 5 yr target encourages low quality, short term assessments - and so far as I have ascertained - was not consulted on widely before being introduced. The definition is also difficult in failing to precisely define the date to be used in calculating the 5 years (when produced in draft? when put out to public consultation? or when finally agreed? - a processs that can take over a year). It is also leading to "fastrack" character assessments being undertaken outside the SPD framework (is it then worth doing an assessment if not part of SPD - leaving it with little material value at appeal??) - or as at Enfield - where fasttrack assessments by external consultants were used - but with only one single "Management Proposal" for all 16 Con Areas (17th Jan 2007) (giving 100% on BVPI 219c). This was commented on last year in Context magazine (see IHBC website). The further issue with BVPI 219c is whether the traditional "enhancement strategy" aspect (as carried out in line with previous EH guidance) can then be deemed to be a "formulated and published management proposal". (Most Councils seem to equate the two). As it stands this BVPI has little credibility due to the lack of prior discussion relating to its introduction. You can throw money at it and achieve 100% with simplistic assessments and SPDs - but to do things properly costs...

The CLG is quoting from DRAFT guidance - which has caused concern from Conservation Officers - as it runs contrary to the PPG.15 and previous English Heritage Guidance. Refer to Para 4.9 of PPG.15 - referring to S.71 of Act placing a DUTY on LPAs to "formulate proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas". "It is important that designation is not seen as an end in itself: policies will almost always need to be developed which clearly identify what it is about the character or appearance of the area which should be preserved or enhanced, and set out the means by which that objective is to be pursued. Para 4.10 refers to the need for consultation - including "on the assessment of special interest". The character appraisal shouldn't be an SPD in itself - but part of justifying and explaining the enhancement and management strategy. If the character assessment is excluded from the SPD and consultation thereon - then it inevitably carries less weight at appeals. Our experience is that in applying an SPD to a particular site - the assessment of the character in the SPD is particularly useful - and liked and used by Inspectors. Those suggesting it be excluded. But then the CLG appears to favour downplaying conservation areas - given its longstanding failure to address the Shimizu issue - and the current Heritage White Paper.