Issue - meetings

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its two appendices and to make the following resolutions:

(1)  That it agrees the principles and approach to achieving protection and conservation of the historic environment within the district as set out in the draft Historic Environment Strategy and Action Plan, attached as an appendix to the report and agrees its scope and content for the purposes of public consultation.

(2)  That it expresses views on the potential of reviving the role of Heritage Champion either as a single member Champion or a series of Champions covering a group of wards.

RESOLVED

(1)  That (a) the principles and approach to achieving protection and conservation of the historic environment within Chichester District as set out in the draft Historic Environment Strategy and Action Plan appended to the agenda report and (b) its scope and content for the purposes of public consultation be approved. 

(2)  That the revival of the role of Heritage Champion as either a single member Champion or a series of Champions covering a group of wards be not approved.

(3)  That the Head of Planning Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning be given delegated authority to make typographical or other minor amendments to the draft Historic Environment Strategy and Action Plan prior to the public consultation.      

The Cabinet considered the report and its two appendices circulated with the agenda (copies attached to the official minutes).

The report was presented by Mrs Taylor.

Mr Allgrove, Mr Frost and Miss Le Vay were in attendance.

Mrs Taylor referred to Chichester District’s distinctive history and the quality of life it afforded to residents and visitors alike. The Historic Environment Strategy (HES) sought to manage change actively. Although it would not apply to the South Downs National Park (SDNP), the SDNP Authority would work in partnership with CDC to ensure a consistency of approach where appropriate. The wide-ranging ambit of the HES was set out in para 6.2 of the report. With reference to the recommendation in para 3.2 and section 7 of the report, the options for reviving at CDC the role of Heritage Champion(s) were set out in appendix 2 (pages 269 and 270). She said that a third recommendation was required to delegate authority to the Head of Planning Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning to make typographical changes and other minor amendments prior to the HES and Action Plan (AP) being published for consultation.   

Two points arose in the Cabinet’s debate: the feasibility of reintroducing the Heritage Champion(s) role (Mr Finch, Mrs Lintill and Mr Barrow) and whether it would be better to incorporate the HES and AP in a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (Mr Finch).

Members were not persuaded that the role of Heritage Champion (given the responsibility involved) could be realistically undertaken by one member. It was in fact a matter for each ward member and yet it would require commitment and training. In addition it was doubtful that the role would have any practical significance and what influence it could exert. The views had not yet been sought of CDC members about this, including the previous Heritage Champion Mrs J E Duncton.

Mr Allgrove advised that the purpose of the HES and AP (they were not a statutory requirement) was not the same as an SPD in that they did not seek to shape development or advise planning applicants (CDC had in fact a wide range of such guidance documents) but instead to set out how CDC proposed to manage the Historic Environment. Consideration could be given to the merits of preparing a SPD but Mr Allgrove doubted it would be necessary.

Mr Allgrove and Mr Carvell said that in view of the prominence and scale of heritage in this area it was very desirable for heritage issues to be championed although it was recognised to be a considerable undertaking for one individual. However, if there was not to be a single individual acting as Heritage Champion, officers had in mind to group wards and to train a smaller number of members rather than every member; the alternative was to leave it to each member to cover as part of the full range of ward responsibilities.

Mr Dignum concluded from the debate that the recommendation in para 3.2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 267