Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Next steps

Annex 1 List of respondents

Annex 2 Additional comments

Annex 3 Policy statements

The following comments summarise the opinion of stakeholders in Wales who responded to the consultation; a list of respondents is provided at Annex 1 (page 6). The White Paper had been drafted following significant consultation with stakeholders since 2003 and this latest consultation involved 3 specific questions.

This summary paper also includes the UK Government's response to these comments - the 'Policy Statements' at Annex 3.

In answering the questions respondents also took the opportunity to comment more widely; these comments are summarised in bullet format at Annex 2 but collectively they did not represent a majority consensus opposing any of the policy initiatives set out in the White Paper. Nevertheless, some wider issues were raised and Annex 3 seeks to address the main points.

There were 48 respondents in Wales and, while not being specifically asked to do so, 77% (37) commented that they generally welcomed or supported the proposals contained in the White Paper. Notably, there was a low response rate from local authorities in Wales. There was also some confusion about the extent to which the White Paper applied to Wales but it should be noted that section 1, as it applies to England, also applies to Wales with the exception of the specific issues set out in section 2.

8 respondents (17%) offered their unreserved support for this option, a further 11 (23%) supported it and 8 (17%) offered no objection but the latter two offered comments on the question posed.

Many respondents stated that the existing legislative provisions should be maintained or strengthened, and in no way weakened. Some were unclear why conservation area consent applied only to demolition and not to alteration or works to trees. Others commented that it was unclear how the disparity between the two regimes was to be addressed, stating that the failure to obtain conservation area consent is a criminal offence, whereas it is not for planning permission. Similarly, a fee is applied to planning permission, whereas it is not for conservation area consent. Many considered it was imperative that statutory guidance should explain that conservation area status had not been diluted, identify works that need consent and local authorities should be required to obtain, and give proper consideration to, professional conservation advice in determining applications. One respondent considered that the principal consideration should be the advice of the conservation professional. Another explained that the conservation principles of conservation area consent must not be an ancillary matter in considering planning permission. Others commented that alterations can have a disastrous effect on conservation areas and the use of Article 4 directions to control such work is a cumbersome, expensive and an inappropriate method of doing so. One respondent explained that the proposal would not address the local authority's resource difficulties in taking forward conservation area management work. Another preferred to retain conservation area consent for an expanded category of work - alteration, partial and total demolition.

19 respondents (39%) had no comment.

2 respondents (4%) opposed it outright; one preferring the current arrangements, while the other commented that the present requirement keeps the importance of conservation areas prominent.

Conservation Area Consent will be removed as a specific consent and be merged with planning permission. As set out in the White Paper, it is proposed to issue guidance to explain that local planning authorities should consult with the appropriate historic environment professionals before reaching decisions on planning permission in a conservation area. Guidance will explain that the merging of the two consent regimes in no way dilutes the importance of conservation areas, nor the requirement to maintain, preserve or enhance their character. The issue of application fees and penalties relating to offences will be further considered. The control of alterations to buildings within a conservation area will continue to be at the discretion of the local authority through an Article 4 Direction. There are no proposals to amend the existing control mechanisms that apply to trees in conservation areas.

It is considered that making whole and partial demolition development subject to planning permission is the simplest and most transparent route to achieving the desired policy aim. The Demolition Direction and the General Permitted Development Order will be amended to provide that demolition and partial demolition of a building in a conservation area constitutes 'development' and will require planning permission (i.e. it will not be permitted development). This will raise the level of protection to the position applying before the Shimizu ruling.

3 respondents (6) offered their unreserved support for this option; a further 15 (31%) supported it and 11 (23%) offered no objection but the latter two offered comments on the question posed.

Many respondents commented that 'major planning applications' required defining as smaller schemes can also have a disproportionately large impact depending on the significance of the historic asset. Others mention that all schemes would benefit equally from pre-application assessment/discussion. Another commented that few pre-application discussions result in a formal planning application. One respondent would like to be involved in such discussion but stated there will be limitations on grounds of capacity; others commented that there will be capacity difficulties for all amenity societies and recommended their funding be increased so they are able to be involved in certain categories of application. Another commented that community, voluntary and local stakeholders must not be excluded from pre-application assessment. Formal guidance is necessary to ensure stakeholders are involved from the outset and there is a clear explanation of what should be expected from developers, regulators and interested groups. One respondent commented that it was vital that pre-application discussions enabled prospective applicants to establish the broad parameters of what may be acceptable. Another four explained that such discussions were already established as good practice. One of the four questioned why statutory guidance was warranted and, along with another respondent, commented that it would be more preferable for technical advice embracing community and amenity society engagement. Another explained that such practice already operated well where archaeology was affected but public involvement should also be considered. Separately, a further respondent explained that such an option could encounter practical difficulties as the archaeological expertise for most local authorities is obtained via regional Archaeological Trusts. Three respondents considered that such a proposal should not attract a fee but it should be incumbent on prospective applicants to pay for pre-application assessment and investigation to inform discussion with local authorities and such discussion must not prejudice the final decision.

18 respondents (38%) had no comment.

1 respondent (2%) opposed it outright stating that further guidance was not necessary and in relation to minerals - on which the comments were narrowly focussed - pre-application discussion was already established as good practice and clear guidance, with more due, was already in place.

1 respondent (2%) offered unreserved support for this option; a further 5 (10%) supported it and 14 (29%) offered no objection but the latter two offered comments on the question posed.

One respondent would welcome further discussion and commented, along with another respondent, that such a proposal would require a rigorous assessment of the value of any given site. Many respondents were sceptical about the degree to which Certificates could be applied to underground archaeology with any real certainty and without undermining its significance. In welcoming the option, a respondent commented that it would provide further confidence for prospective purchasers. Others commented that the consideration given to issuing Certificates should be no less rigorous than considering a site for designation with a thorough pre-application assessment and evaluation. Another commented that guidance would be required to clarify the regulator required to issue the Certificate and the type and range of historic assets that should be covered. One respondent considered that no such proposal should be implemented until statutory procedures required publication of a proposed immunity and there was an opportunity for third parties to comment. Another, while supporting the proposal, stated that it was a side effect of the incomplete designation of all historic assets and the negative opinion of designation and the consent system. A further respondent considered that the availability of such Certificates would encourage opportunistic applications that would drain resources and add pressure on local authorities. Five respondents commented that such a proposal may require advertisement and consultation in accordance with the principles of the White Paper. From a mineral development perspective, one respondent considered that it would be better to produce Mineral Development Frameworks and designate sites for future mineral extraction with archaeologists assessing the heritage character of mineral areas.

20 respondents (42%) had no comment.

8 respondents (17%) opposed it outright. One stated that such a proposal had implications for speculative development and was not suitable where extensive assessment and field evaluation would be necessary. Another two considered that developers should consider the archaeological significance of the land during pre-planning application investigations and assessment. Certificates contradict this current practice of heritage protection, as they do community involvement. The evaluation of any given site would be identical to that for designation and the latter is the correct process to follow with an opportunity for appeal. It may be impossible to predict the significance of any given site irrespective of the degree of research or investigation. One respondent considered that any such Certificates should be time limited.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Welsh Assembly Government will jointly take forward the proposals in the White Paper, along with the final policy decisions that are highlighted in this paper. In order for these proposals to be bought into effect they will need primary legislation. We intend to publish a draft Heritage Protection Bill in the 2007/8 Session. We will seek Parliamentary time to introduce the Heritage Protection Bill thereafter. If the Bill were introduced in 2008/09, the proposals would begin to come into effect from 2010/11. The legislation will cover England and Wales but will be sufficiently flexible to allow different practice and approaches in Wales.

Publication of a draft Bill, along with draft secondary legislation, will allow stakeholders to consider more fully the detail of what is proposed and to offer further input prior to introduction of the Bill.

Alongside the Parliamentary process we will be drafting detailed guidance to accompany these proposals. This guidance will provide further detail on the proposals and explain how the different aspects of the new heritage protection systems will work in practice.

Annex 1

1. Statutory Designation

1.1 Unified List -

• 3 respondents considered that by Cadw retaining what is now known as scheduled monument consent (SMC), the Register will need to distinguish between the different category of assets thereby creating a historic assets register, rather than a unified list. 2 of the 3 urge a unified list in Wales.

1.2 Consultation -

• Consultation on designation should include relevant heritage professionals;
• Designation consultation and appeals should be open to statutory consultees and interested parties in Wales.

1.3 Selection Criteria -

• A review of the selection criteria to produce a single set under a unified system is supported;
• It does not appear that the Welsh Assembly Government will review or publish selection criteria but further information in respect of guiding principles would be welcome;
• There should be consultation on selection criteria in Wales;
• New selection criteria based on a unified designation is supported and would welcome clarity on how a unified list may look - a single register or existing records running in parallel.

1.4 Interim Protection -

• Interim protection presumably subject to compensation if asset subsequently not designated;
• 3 respondents were unclear if interim protection from the point of consultation applied to Wales;
• Interim protection is needed;
• Interim measures of protection required now ahead of the proposed reform;
• Interim protection should apply to all potentially damaging works.

1.5 Descriptions -

• Some list descriptions are technical and inaccessible to the general public and they would benefit from a simplified summary and statement of significance. Older scheduling descriptions are very inadequate. This review would be an ideal opportunity to bid for additional funding to review all descriptions and the 4 Archaeological Trusts are well placed to undertake part of the review;
• It is noted that extending designation descriptions to include statements of significance will not be applied in Wales despite the consequential benefits of them being an educational resource for all stakeholders and interest groups;
• Will a new pro-forma asset record be used in a new register and will this be comparable to the English Historic Asset Record (HAR).

1.6 Criteria and Grading -

• If all SAMs are graded I there appears no scope for locally important archaeology to appear in the Register. Parks and gardens are included but have no additional statutory protection. It implies a lack of consistency for grading as some have statutory protection, while others do not;
• Agree monuments should be graded but not all at grade I;
• The grading of scheduled monuments should be re-evaluated applying new principles of selection. Listing anomalies/errors should be resolved at the earliest opportunity;
• Designation criteria should include sites of human activity which do not include structures and cultural value;
• Designation maps are required;
• Urge a more robust approach to identification, preservation and enforcement in relation to traditional mills;
• Listing criteria for Mills needs reviewing (with consultation) especially as some 10 years ago Cadw gave an assurance that all mills retaining their machinery would be listed grade II* - experience shows that this is not evenly applied to mills capable of working. More worrying, some listed mills have been gutted or converted. The machinery is integral and requires protection. Welsh Mills Society would welcome discussion and further commented that the removal of VAT for repairs and maintenance of mills would help considerably, as would lower rateable values;
• Statutory powers to protect mills and machinery should be strengthened and a presumption against demolition or alteration (inc machinery) should exist.

1.7 Parks and Gardens -

• It is unclear what is being achieved by having a statutory register of parks and gardens, as no additional protection is envisaged;
• Uneasy about a statutory Register of Parks and Gardens as it involves greater and unrealistic protection. Owners already feel misled - some consider it was compiled on a compulsory basis when it was not, and others considered it was a voluntary, academic, aspiration but soon realised it involved an element of protection;
• Disappointing that parks and gardens are not to be afforded any additional statutory controls;
• Endorse the statutory basis for the parks and gardens register and commend the register in Wales, commenting that the descriptions would serve as a model for England;
• Question the protection afforded the setting of parks and gardens and consideration should be given to introducing buffer zones around them;
• Recommend that the Royal Commission be a statutory consultee for Registered Historic Parks and Gardens in recognition of its resources in this field.

1.8 General -

• The proposals require a statutory local list protecting buildings from alteration as well as demolition;
• Cadw commended for its completion of the listing programme and ongoing scheduling programme;
• Will the new register be available on-line and will an on-line application form be available for all designation applications;
• Because there are no proposals to merge scheduled monuments with listed buildings, there is no potential for reducing bureaucracy;
• There will be a public impact to dropping the term 'listed building' which is a well understood and has a strong brand image;
• The removal of areas of archaeological importance will create a fragmented approach;
• High standards of professional input into designations must be maintained and not undermined by interim or localised considerations. The extra workload associated with consultation and appeals should not dilute the work of the heritage body;
• Online access in Wales urgently required;
• Concern about costs involved for providing more detailed descriptions and hope the funding will not be diverted from conservation and maintenance programmes.

2.1 Guidance -

• Unclear how defining the demolition of locally designated buildings as development will work in practice. 4 respondents commented that guidance was required to identify and designate local lists including all historic assets. One commented that it should be backed up with sufficient resources;
• It is unclear from the paper if Wales will prepare new guidance to local authorities on local designation criteria or management good practice;
• Local designations will require additional funding and/or evaluation criteria if they are to be undertaken in the short to medium term.

2.2 Landscapes -

• 8 respondents advised that the Register of Landscapes of Wales and the ASIDOHL guide should be included in the Register and one of the 8 commented that its position within the planning process should be reinforced.

2.3 Local Lists v Historic Environment Records (HERs) -

• Local listed buildings may be better included in HERs alongside archaeological sites, supplemented with planning guidance to explain how items on the HERs should be considered, and
• Confusion as to the relationship between local lists and HERs and the capability of local authorities to compile and manage local lists;

2.4 Characterisation -

• Characterisation work beyond those on the formal Register must be attained quickly as it is critical to aid decision making at the local level, and
• Lack of detail on proposals to develop characterisation work;

2.5 Local Lists -

• Every local authority should prepare a local list and it should be mandatory, on a statutory basis. Amenity societies and local heritage organisations would be a useful source of information to identify candidate buildings;
• Consider if local lists should be mandatory, and
• How will the demolition of locally important buildings be controlled without a local list of designations.

2.6 Consultation -

• Consultation and appeal should equally apply to local lists;
• Local listing and a consent system will need to be properly resourced to enable proper implementation eg a comprehensive explanation and consultation;
• The local designations proposed for England should similarly apply to Wales with sufficient resources and new criteria and good practice guidance.

3.1 Historic Asset Consent (HAC)-

• Cadw's retention of what is now scheduled monument consent appears to make it impossible to develop a unified Historic Asset Consent as proposed for England, and it will cause confusion for owners and applicants. Note no reference to listed building consent in the Welsh section;
• Any review of the planning system must integrate HAC into the broader planning framework;
• The paper recognises the role of the Archaeological Trusts in managing HERs but not heritage management, properly funded service management agreements would enable them to deliver much of the white paper proposals on behalf of local authorities;
• Concern that the comprehensive control of scheduled monuments may be diluted if repairs (the methodology) are not subject to consent;
• Unclear how the new system will be incorporated into the broader planning framework;
• Recognise capacity problems in Wales but the 4 Archaeological Trusts already provide heritage management advice to local authorities and could do so for certain categories of HACs;
• HAC must be unified with appropriate consultation, and maybe an online application system;
• Because there are no changes proposed to the determination of scheduled monument consent by Cadw and the determination of some but not all listed building consent by Cadw, there is no potential for reducing and/or clarifying bureaucratic control;
• Regrettable that Wales will not immediately have a unified consent regime at a local level;
• Will there be consultation on a greater role for pre-application discussion;
• The alteration of listed buildings should be brought within the sphere of development control, including an exemption against current or future legislation aimed at climate control where such action would result in the removal or alteration of authentic/original features.

3.2 Locally Important Buildings -

• 2 respondents were unclear how the demolition of locally important buildings will be delivered in Wales;
• The proposal to bring the demolition of locally designated buildings within development control is strongly welcomed;
• Local listing control by permitted development rights contradicts the paper's vision of simplification. Better to combine control of conservation areas and local listing into a separate local heritage consent;

3.3 Consultation -

• Concerns that the Gardens History Society has not operated in Wales for over 8 years;
• Questionable whether Welsh Historic Gardens Trust could undertake the consultee task throughout Wales;
• Over-consultation on applications and pre-application proposals requires consideration. Many consultees are under resourced and this also requires consideration;
• 2 respondents asked that consideration be given to the Archaeological Trusts being a statutory consultee on applications affecting parks and gardens;
• Welcomes the proposals and assumes the status of the Garden History Society, as a statutory consultee, applies to England only;
• Welsh Historic Gardens Trust welcome the opportunity to discuss implementation and funding of the Trust as a statutory consultee;
• Wales should have similar arrangements for consultation with amenity societies as England and the extended range of applications due for consultation is welcome but will require discussion given the significant implications for CBA's resources and capacity;
• The Garden History Society enthusiastically accepts the invitation for it to act as a statutory consultee and would be delighted to discuss further detail;
• The Royal Commission strongly recommends that it remain a statutory consultee in Wales for Historic Asset Consent. Long-standing provisions exist for emergency recording of buildings, most recently stated in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Where developer funded recording fails, it is essential that similar provision is made in the new legislation. Given the difficulties of definition with regard to partial demolition, the provision should be extended to allow the same recording in exceptional circumstances for cases of partial demolition, removal of fittings (which in some cases are prime reasons for designation) and works affecting monuments.

3.4 Archaeology -

• Abolishing ploughing class consent is recommended;
• 4 respondents were unclear whether the agricultural class consent will be phased out in Wales, with benefit of HPAs, and one of the 4 was unclear whether enhanced training and capacity building applies to Wales;
• Proposals for Class Consent and ploughing are weak and do not seem to change current options of excavation or compensation.

3.5 Article 4 Directions -

• 8 respondents considered that the use of Article 4 directions is pointless and inappropriate and should be simpler.One commented that they can be accompanied by compensation thereby negatively affecting their usage, or even designation itself. 3 of the 8 respondents considered that alterations to locally listed buildings could be more effectively controlled without Article 4 directions. Another similarly commented on the demolition of locally listed buildings. One of the 8 explained that the inconsistent use of Article 4 directions in conservation areas is confusing and control mechanisms should be simpler.

3.6 Non-Designated Assets -

• 4 respondents considered that the new legislation should be broader and specifically include and recognise the non designated aspects of the historic environment alongside those that are designated, including appropriate systems for non designated assets to be integrated and effectively considered in the broader planning system. One of the 4 commented that any review of the planning system must integrate HAC into the broader planning framework;

3.7 General -

• Proposed designations are nebulous and incompatible with land use planning. To protect the historic environment responses to extraction proposals must be consistent, reasonable and proportionate and there seems little basis for that within the current round of consultation;
• Online HAC applications are commended;
• It is unclear how the unified approach will differentiate between the requirement for statutory consents and statutory/non statutory consideration;
• Will there be any consultation on proposals to merge conservation area consent with planning permission.

4.1 Designations -

• Appeals against designations should be valid only if made on grounds of historical merit and not based on existing or potential land use or economic grounds.

4.2 Historic Asset Consent -

• What will the appeal procedure for HAC be as no details are included, without further information an opportunity for transparency will be lost.

4.3 Independence -

• 4 respondents commented that appeals must be considered independently and a new appeals panel has merit;

4.4 Appellant -

• Appeals should be open to statutory consultees and interested parties in Wales, and
• Designation appeals should be open to all. Appeal Panels should be set up in England and Wales and include representation from the national amenity societies.

4.5 General -

• Any appeals process should not be overly formal - the current informal system on de-listings, by correspondence rather than hearing, operates well;
• Will there be a central data base of appeals decisions;
• Will there be pressure for appeals against buildings proposed for a local list;
• Concerned that appeals against designation are not retrospective thereby being of little use to those with an interest in the buildings already listed;

5.1 Protection -

• 3 respondents commented that ecclesiastical exemption should not lessen the protection currently afforded assets, nor should the internal control system influence non-designation;
• Ecclesiastical exemption could be extended beyond the church in use and include curtilage structures;
• Ecclesiastical assets are prime candidates for HPAs;
• The proposal to consider extending ecclesiastical exemption to cover a wider range of assets is a weakening of the current system;

5.2 General -

• Questionable whether the ecclesiastical regime can mirror the secular system and if it does what are the benefits as it seems to duplicate roles;
• The risk of court costs through the consistory court system for Ecclesiastical Exemption may deter legitimate concerns being raised;
• If Shimizu is negated will ecclesiastical applications be required for all work to unlisted churches in conservation areas;
• Many churches do not welcome the prospect of listing because of consequent operational and financial implications;

6.1 Ecclesiastical -

• 2 respondents commented that these ecclesiastical assets are prime candidates for Heritage Partnership Agreements (HPAs).

6.2 Guidance -

• 3 respondents commented that guidance on the use of HPAs is needed; one of the 3 also commented on the need for adequate resources.

6.3 Consultation -

• National amenity groups and local stakeholders should be able to contribute their views to HPAs, where appropriate and viable. The process will need to recognise the additional demands this will make on resources and capacity in the voluntary sector.

6.4 General -

• The Church in Wales (CiW) offers St David's Cathedral as a potential HPA as a pilot;
• Will Heritage Partnership Agreements (HPAs) be introduced for Class Consent No 1;
• Pre-application discussion for HPAs not mentioned in the Welsh section but is strongly supported.

7.1 Historic Environment Records -

• The proposal relating to HERs in Wales is worse than England as it is to be done through the agency of others; it should be located locally and integrated with the planning system;
• The proposals to support local authority records do not appear to be proposed for Wales;
• 4 respondents commented that Historic Environment Records (HERs) will require new training and capacity building and a defined, uniform, national standard - lack of resources to manage current HERs and additional support will be required, not least, to integrate marine data. Early discussion is required about including HERs in the Historic Wales web portal and for considering the most effective processes for implementing all the proposals set out in the White Paper. 2 of the 4 commented that local authorities should also be required to consult HERs in a prescribed and appropriate way, including the expert opinion of those who maintain and operate the record;
• The requirement for local authorities to support HERs will require policies to explain the types and levels of support required. Similarly, HERs include information that requires specialist interpretation so it is vital that specialist advice is also available to local authorities;
• The statutory requirement for HERs could adversely impact on the non-statutory historic conservation and design project work - all should have statutory status. HERs must be appropriately resourced and interpreted, will require new training and capacity building and a defined, uniform, national standard. The statutory duty should be extended to require local authorities to use these records in determining effective management of the historic environment;
• New legislation should place a duty on the Welsh HERs to specifically identify undesignated archaeological sites that are of regional or local importance to aid their better protection;
• Sufficient resources must be made available to support new provisions for HERs;
• More work is necessary to define minimum standards of HERs and the IFA would like to be involved with Cadw in the process. Standards and the services that support HERs must be included in statutory guidance.

7.2 Web Portal -

• The Historic Wales web portal should include information on local designations;
• The Historic Wales web portal raises issues of security as the information may identify valuable items or aspects of a buildings fabric increasingly susceptible to theft;
• The paper wrongly suggests that there are matching English and Welsh Heritage Gateways to which Marine Historic Assets will be added, but the system in Wales is likely to be the same as that for Scotland, with information being added through the Royal Commission to the Historic Wales Portal;
• The Register and applications should be available online;
• Web search engines do not easily find the Historic Wales Portal. Accessibility to the list descriptions through the Portal would be welcome.

7.3 General -

• The CiW maintains extensive logbooks and terriers and is interested to discuss how this information can be made more widely available subject to security considerations;
• Important to ensure that the records produced as a result of the proposals for local designations, Heritage Partnership Agreements and characterisation are accommodated within the co-ordinated roles of the Royal Commission, the Archaeological Trusts and Cadw;
• Preservation by record results in thousands of recording projects each year, developer-funded as a reasonable condition of consent. The Royal Commission provides advice on the needs and standards for recording. Secondary legislation will be a timely opportunity to create a firm basis for this by codifying practice for prescribing, monitoring and depositing appropriate records. It should ensure that records produced through the consent process are deposited in a public archive within an agreed timescale, meet approved data standards and have intellectual property rights properly transferred to permit future accessibility and use;

8.1 Designation -

• Designation criteria are unclear; it is essential that designations are supported by robust evidence, including the importance of a site in the national context;
• It is suggested that certain fishing activities can be construed as not damaging the sea bed or designated marine sites;
• The extent to which economic and social criteria may be applied to designations is unclear. Such criteria are already accepted through the Marine Bill White paper for Marine Conservation Zones and it is sensible for it to similarly apply to marine heritage assets. A similar process should be adopted;
• It is noted that anyone can suggest a site for designation and it is difficult to see, without applicants being required to employ an evidence-based approach, how the heritage agency, or interested parties, can determine the merits of any proposed designation. It is also important that designated sites are capable of modification or being withdrawn in light of understanding developing;
• No details on the selection criteria for marine historic assets but they should be developed in a transparent and open manner, including clear information on the range of features that could be designated, how their significance will be determined and the means by which the limits of individual designations should be defined;
• Unclear why marine designation will not fall under the auspices of the proposed Marine Bill. Designation should be undertaken by the Marine Management Organisation (or equivalent in the devolved administrations) supported by advice from the national heritage advisors;
• Any new regime must explain the extent of protection in terms of other licensed activities eg licensed marine aggregate dredging. Practical guidance already exists 'Marine Aggregates and the Historic Environment';
• The marine aspects of the Paper should be fully integrated with the proposed Marine Bill. The statutory selection criteria should be expanded to include architectural, marine architectural and other cultural interest and the proposed Marine Management Organisation proposed under the Marine Bill seem best placed to exercise this function and rightly maintain the marine Register separate to that for terrestrial assets. While no grading is proposed, designation descriptions must explain the nature and significance of any given marine designation. The need for designations to be made at Ministerial level is questionable;
• Welcomes interim protection for marine designations;

8.2 Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites (ACHWS) -

• 2 respondents commented that the role of the Advisory Committee on Historic Wrecks should be reviewed, including its proposed broader remit to consider designating assets of a wider description, potentially those beyond territorial limits and its compatibility with terrestrial heritage assets where they overlap the inter tidal zone. One of the 2 commented that the Marine Bill proposes a different mechanism with advice from the Marine Management Organisation on assets outside territorial limits;
• A single advisory committee advising on both designation and licensing is of concern.

8.3 Salvage -

• The White Paper does not remove historic wreck from the salvage regime and this is of concern;
• 2 respondents commented that the reform of the salvage and reporting law remains to be addressed. 1 of the 2 was concerned there is no mandatory requirement to report finds - required under Valetta Convention - other than report the recovery of wreck to the Receiver of Wreck.

8.4 Recording and Management -

• The White Paper does not fully acknowledge the paucity of information available on the marine environment eg palaeo-landscapes. Much of the high quality, high resolution marine data is that collected by developers. It is difficult to judge the significance of any given site without a broad scale of information. There should be a commitment to develop that information through the acquisition of new data, perhaps in conjunction with proposals for nature conservation, and
• It is of concern that the cost implications for the marine environment proposals are quoted as negligible but significant investment is required for management and recording.

8.5 General -

• Not clear how the Paper addresses cross border marine issues such as the Severn Estuary which provides valuable lessons of working within different legislative regimes;
• Are site licensees intended to be included in protecting maritime heritage;
• The marine proposals do little to inspire confidence that it will be protected and there is no mention of its use to education;
• The proposals add little to the existing legislation;
• Concerned that the marine proposals may not be properly linked with the Marine Bill and proposals for marine protection areas;
• Recommend that the Royal Commission be a statutory consultee for the marine historic environment in recognition of its resources in this field;
• There are cross cutting issues with the proposed Marine Bill and both designated and undesignated assets must be considered through the marine spatial planning process.

8.6 Looking Further Ahead -

• 2 respondents considered that the legislative framework for marine heritage protection should be flexible to enable devolved administrations to introduce their own measures if they so wish in future; one of the 2 commented that this should be considered in conjunction with the proposed Marine Bill;
• 12 Sea Fisheries Committees exist in England and Wales, operating under an Act of Parliament with jurisdiction covering territorial seas. Its officers are warranted enforcement officers and if required, and trained, could use heritage enforcement powers. The Committees have sea borne patrol capability, can provide a sea going platform on a repayment basis and a chargeable enforcement service. Can also provide advice to designating authorities on what fishing activities occur on designated or undesignated sites, and advise on what activities might be permitted to continue in or near such a site.

9.1 Guidance -

• Generally, local authorities will require substantial guidance, in particular, to develop more comprehensive and accessible HER information. A potential planning delivery grant would be an incentive to improvements during implementation. An update of heritage guidance should emphasis public participation and educational opportunities through regeneration or development projects;
• 3 respondents recommend introducing policy guidance as proposed for England;
• Unclear if the proposed new statutory guidance on locally designated buildings will apply to Wales, nevertheless, it should;
• Any new policy guidance can usefully draw on British Standard BS7913:1998 A Guide to the Principles of the Conservation of Historic Buildings;
• Urge developing strong statutory guidance;
• Circular 61/96 requires updating to a clearly stated timescale;
• Are there any proposals to improve guidance on the Historic Environment to local authorities.

9.2 Funding, Resources and Capacity -

• 18 respondents considered, or implied, that increased funding would be required for local authorities to implement the proposals. One commented that funding must be considered under the Government's 'New Burden' rules and guaranteed for use by local authorities in the field of heritage. Another respondent was convinced that the required investment, particularly in skills and training, will be money well spent;
• 4 respondents considered, or implied, that additional funding would be required by proposed statutory consultees/ amenity societies to implement the proposals;
• 4 respondents considered, or implied, that additional funding would be required by Cadw, one commented that the existing commitments of Cadw and the Assembly Government should not be compromised. Another stating that the cost of preparing a unified register requires extra funding and must not divert existing money from primary conservation work;
• 2 respondents considered, or implied, that additional funding would be required by the Archaeological Trusts ;
• 12 respondents considered, or implied, that a new programme of training, support and capacity for local authorities and local heritage organisations was vital. The IHBC, RIBS, and RTPI commented that they would be happy to work alongside the relevant departments. The Archaeological Training Forum also wish to be fully involved in discussions on this matter, commenting that such initiatives are stronger when co-operative and a sector-wide partnership is important. Another commented that all stakeholders, including education bodies, should be involved from the outset;
• Certain improvements could be implemented now, in advance of the new legislation:
  - Clear guidance on the functions of a local authority historic environment service based on proposals by the IFA, IHBC and ALGAO
  - A programme of training and capacity building to equip historic environment professionals with the skills and resources to deliver reforms to a prescribed standard;
  - Improve planning guidance to define archaeological resource more comprehensively, confirm it is reasonable to require opportunities for public participation and to require commercial work to be conducted by accredited historic environment professionals, and ensure proper provision for archiving and publishing completed excavations.
• The proposed migration to new arrangements will require careful management by expert staff and it is unfortunate that the paper makes no reference to the resources required to do this;
• Vital to have transition strategy;

10.1 Consultation -

• Welsh Mills Society should be a statutory consultee;
• Capel: the Welsh Chapels Society should be considered as a statutory consultee on relevant issues;
• Consultation with voluntary, specialist groups should occur in Wales, as it is implied for England;
• CBA look forward to contributing to the decision making process and dialogue with Cadw about the most effective means of achieving it;
• Any revision to the way the Trusts operate must be discussed with them and the management of local listings must be clarified before implementation;

10.2 Standards -

• There must be mechanisms and procedures to achieve good standards and proper decisions;

10.3 More Detail -

• 3 respondents advised that it was preferable to have a fuller explanation of the Trusts' role in the Welsh section so it explains their role in providing heritage management advice to local authorities, and clearer definitions of, for example, local authorities historic environment services. These omissions raise questions as to the extent to which the proposals have been properly considered.
• The paper should emphasis the need for maintenance as part of sustainability and amend procedures for helping buildings at risk. Current repairs and urgent works notices are cumbersome and thereby frequently under used. Repairs notices not mentioned in paper and should be;
• 5 respondents considered that it was unclear what aspects of the proposals in England apply to Wales as many are not included in the Welsh section;
• Concerns that the lack of detail in the Welsh section mean there is still a need for the Assembly Government to clearly set out its proposals. Any Welsh Measures will require further consultation with stakeholders.
• The reforms should be broader and specifically include and recognise the non designated aspects of our historic environment, including appropriate systems for their interests to be effectively considered in the planning system;
• 2 respondents were concerned about the apparent lack of ambition in the Welsh section.
• 2 respondents generally welcomed the proposals but considered that they could have been more holistic and integrated with regeneration, urban design objectives, sustainability and planning. One of the two considered an opportunity had been missed to address area management schemes, buildings at risk, VAT on repairs, community engagement, amenity bodies involvement and training and skills shortages, and it was important that the cross cutting issues were addressed within the Welsh Assembly Government;
• The paper should have a more joined-up approach recognising the social, economic and sustainability benefits of the historic environment and the integrated benefits that stem from it. Seems to have missed the opportunity to tie in these proposals with other parallel planning, development and marine reforms. The historic environment must be fully integrated into all major Government initiatives and it is essential that a substantial 'heritage implementation plan' is delivered to take forward the historic environment in a completely holistic manner;
• Confusion about the extent of change proposed in Wales - requires clarification on possibility of greater consultation extended to heritage professionals and tenants. Questions whether equal weight will be given to objections and representations of support.
• Concerned that there may be a difference of approach in England and Wales
• VAT on repair or refurbishment should be reconsidered;
• Welcome proposals but note the Welsh section is less detailed and therefore question whether it is capable of delivering the core principles;
• Other cross cutting Departments should commit/be signatories - tourism, planning, local communities, cultural life… Legislative change should include carefully targeted advertising while emphasising value of historic environment;
• More detail on transitional arrangements would be helpful;
• Few new tools or resources are being made available to regulators eg. imaginative linkages of the listing and tax system, and expansion of the listed places of worship grant scheme;
• The Welsh Assembly Government should support enabling organisations such as Planning Aid Wales and establish a similar body to Heritage Link;
• Unclear the extent of legislative competence to be conferred on the Assembly Government, nor what Assembly Measures will be sought. More clarity is required to explain the mechanisms to those in the heritage sector, not least so they understand whether there will be further opportunity to comment and influence the way forward.

Annex 3

Policy statements

1. The Unified Register in Wales

It is intended to seek legislation to establish a Register for Wales which will bring together the current disparate designation and registration systems. It is intended to seek to provide that the historic landscapes included in Part 2 of the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales will be included on the unified Register in Wales, along with historic parks and gardens included in Part 1 and, subject to further consideration, possibly historic battlefields. Such registration would mean that these areas would need to be taken into account in decisions on planning applications and environmental assessments.

2. Locally Designated Buildings

Guidance will be published to explain the parameters of local designation, including new selection criteria and good practice, based on the national system, to assist local authorities in developing their own registers.

It is intended to seek provision for amendment of the Demolition Direction so that demolition of locally designated buildings constitutes 'development'. Further consideration will be given as to how to address the concerns regarding the effectiveness of relying on Article 4 Directions for the protection of locally listed buildings and whether granting permitted development rights for demolition of these buildings provides them with appropriate protection.

3. Ecclesiastical Exemption

It is intended to provide that ecclesiastical exemption will continue under the new heritage protection system as it reduces burdens on the planning system whilst maintaining protection and dealing appropriately with the needs of particular historic assets used as places of worship. Any system operated by the exempt denominations will be required to have similar levels of consultation and engagement as the secular consent system in order for that denomination to continue to benefit from the exemption. The exent of the exemption will be reviewed with the relevant denominations but it is not envisaged that it will extend to planning permission, nor what is currently known as conservation area consent.

4. Heritage Partnership Agreements (HPAs)

It is intended to seek provision for voluntary statutory management agreements for historic sites in the form of HPAs. Guidance will be available which will explain the process of HPAs, advise on their practice and the benefits of comprehensive consultation with stakeholders. We will adopt an evidence-based approach and draw on the experience of the HPA pilots undertaken in England. We do not anticipate that the use of HPAs will be widespread but envisage the concept can offer savings in terms of processing consents and grant applications for large sites containing multiple historic assets.

5. Historic Environment Records

It is intended to seek a statutory duty on local authorities to maintain or have access to an Historic Environment Record. In practice we anticipate that the current network of HERs that are maintained by the 4 Welsh Archaeological Trusts will continue, with possible improvements in content and service provision. We do not envisage that every local planning authority will have to create an HER from scratch. We also propose to publish guidance on the format and content of HERs.

6. Marine

The proposals in the White Paper relating to the marine historic environment were welcomed by those respondents to the consultation that raised marine issues. Although some respondents felt that these proposals did not go far enough, particularly in the area of salvage law reform, we are mindful of the complex interests of the many different sea users and do not intend to seek to impose additional statutory obligations on sea-users to report information, nor make substantive changes to salvage law in relation to marine historic assets, as it is considered to be a disproportionate response. It is preferable to encourage responsible behaviour by all sea-users rather than seek to impose additional regulatory burdens in order to address the activities of an irresponsible minority.

As part of the proposed changes to the marine protection system the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will, in liaison with the Welsh Assembly Government, review the ACHWS to make sure it is still fulfilling a necessary and appropriate role.

7. Resources, Capacity Building and Guidance

A detailed Impact Assessment will be published alongside a future draft Heritage Protection Bill.

It is intended that the introduction of any new legislation to deliver the White Paper proposals will be supported by a range of guidance and advice for local authorities.

8. World Heritage Sites

It is intended to include World Heritage Sites as Article 1(5) land under the GDPO; this will put them on the same footing as other protected places such as Conservation Areas and National Parks. We will issue policy guidance on the level of protection and management required for World Heritage Sites.