Conservation Areas in Wales: Management and Urban Design

management and urban design
Conservation Areas in Wales
Matthew Griffiths and Sam Romaya

The Civic Trust for Wales Department of City and Regional Planning Cardiff University
Conservation Areas in Wales
Cardiff: the Pierhead (Cardiff Bay Development Corporation)
Conservation Areas in Wales Management and Urban Design
Matthew Griffiths and Sam Romaya
The Civic Trust for Wales Department of City and Regional Planning Cardiff University
Conservation areas in Wales: management and design

2000 Matthew Griffiths and Sam Romaya ISBN 1-902647-04-1 This research has been funded by Cadw Welsh Historic Monuments and the Civic Trust for Wales The Civic Trust for Wales 2nd floor, Empire House, Mount Stuart Square, Cardiff CF10 5FN Department of City and Regional Planning Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3WA Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank in particular the staff of the Welsh local authorities who contributed their time to this survey. Thanks are due also to the National Assembly Planning Division for their support, to those who have assisted with illustrations (especially Bill Davies for his drawings), and to Emyr Evans of Cardiff City and County Council. Emma Baxter, formerly a student at the School of City and Regional Planning, and now working on Jersey as a planning officer, undertook the initial statistical analysis. This research and publication was part-funded by Cadw Welsh Historic Monuments.
Contents
Foreword (Sue Essex) Preface 1 2 3 4 5 Introduction Survey Design Findings Looking to the Future A National Vision? vii 1 3 7 9 29 39 43 53 57 59
Appendix 1: Tabular Data Appendix 2: Seminar Summary Select Bibliography Questionnaire
Foreword
a growing appreciation that our historic environment is important and that we need to do our best to ensure its conservation for future generations. Key to this is the designation by local authorities of conservation areas defined areas which are of special architectural or historic interest, which should be protected and even enhanced. Wales has a significant number of conservation areas but they are managed in different ways by different authorities.
HERE IS
This study by the Civic Trust for Wales and the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cardiff University looks at current arrangements on the ground and examines how they might be improved in the interests of the environment as a whole. This is timely, given the work the National Assembly is progressing with the Land Use Planning Forum to develop new planning guidance, and our current initiative to improve design in Wales. All of this fits well with the Assemblys overall agenda for a Better Wales. I encourage you to read the report carefully and to move the debate forward by completing the questionnaire seeking responses to its conclusions and recommendations.
Sue Essex, AM
Assembly Secretary for the Environment August 2000
Preface
Local authorities must designate as a conservation area any area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance Local planning authorities are required to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas. Policies will normally be needed which set out clearly what it is about the character or appearance of an area which should be preserved or enhanced, and set out the means by which that objective is to be pursued.1 Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy, paras. 5.6.1, 5.6.2; Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990, s. 70 (5)
onservation Areas have been on the statute books since the Civic Amenities Act of 1967. This legislation was substantively the outcome of an initiative by the Civic Trust, which in the early years of its existence had reflected growing concern about the impact of insensitive development on the historic built environment. Since that date the legislative framework has been updated more than once, and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act of 1990 was an attempt to consolidate the piecemeal statutory guidance that had developed in a somewhat pragmatic manner. The last decade of the 20th century saw growing interest in the function and effectiveness of conservation area designation as a tool for protecting places of architectural and historic interest and as a means to achieving better quality urban environments. In England, the most recent government guidance on the topic is contained in PPG 15; in Wales, general guidance is given in Planning guidance (Wales): planning policy and technical guidance is offered in NAW circular 61/96. This study is a joint exercise by the Civic Trust for Wales and the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cardiff University. It is based on a questionnaire survey of the local planning authorities in Wales undertaken during July and August 1999. As part of the process, an informal seminar was held for professionals in September at which comments were sought on the data that had been collected and responses were made to the issues identified by the researchers. A second seminar was held in February 2000 where the draft conclusions and recommendations in this report were discussed
Note the discrepancy between the wording of Planning Guidance (Wales), which refers to must, and the
act itself, which states shall.
Conservation areas in Wales
1 Introduction
1.1 Context
oday good practice in planning involves addressing environments and communities holistically, and urban design is central to this process of making places successful - in terms of quality and character, and in the way people feel about the places they live in, work in, and visit.1 Character and appearance are closely related to distinctive identity and sense of locality and community. An historic and/or architecturally significant neighbourhood possesses just such an identity which forms the basis on which to build and improve. The need to appraise such distinctiveness is inherent in section 54A of the principal act, which emphasised the need for clear development plan policies for conservation areas, based on appraisals that justify and contextualise designation.2 However, there could be a conflict between the objectives of conservation and preservation and the wider ambition of achieving urban quality. Part of the debate in the seminar that was organised in the course of this study reflected the different perspectives of conservation experts and town planners with a wider concern for urban design and vitality. Moreover, thirty years after the initial legislation, the wider question of whether conservation areas are the right or the best tool for achieving either of the objectives that have been identified is being increasingly voiced.
Calman
The Civic Trust for Wales undertook a modest study of conservation areas in Wales ten years ago, and considered the above question at that stage. In 1999 research from Newcastle Universitys Centre for European Environments identified both considerable support from the public for the notion of conservation areas and considerable confusion as to the means of control available to local authorities. John Pendlebury has questioned whether the current model works well enough and has suggested alternative approaches based on either a rejection of defined areas and moving towards an approach based on local distinctiveness, or, developing a two-tier system, based on national and local criteria.3 The extent to which there is public understanding of the system is an issue that regularly engages the Trust, which on the one hand deals with amenity groups engaged in planning casework, and on the other often finds it necessary to argue with those who believe that conservation

Fig 1 Cardiff: The Hayes Development and conservation pressures
ings which are the main components of conservation areas.6 This has positive benefits, yet, as Cantacuzino has suggested
The preservation of more and more individual buildings and groups of buildings, the emphasis on preservation in conservation areas, the growing practice of adapting what are quite ordinary buildings to new uses, the protection of the setting of buildings have all made for consolidation and improvement rather than invention and new ideas.7
legislation can be an unfair constraint on the householder or the developer, who could become involved in extra costs.
The enhancement of appearance implies a wider concern with design quality, especially urban design, with the spaces between and around buildings and neighbourhoods, and with the ways in which new development is accommodated, older buildings enabled to achieve beneficial re-use, and in the way we design for efficient, safe and environmentally sensitive movement within and through conservation areas. Wales has already developed a different format for its planning guidance, with some shades of difference in terms of content, too, although the Welsh Office has reflected the intentions of Whitehall guidance more closely. With the National Assembly taking responsibility for planning matters there is the opportunity to build on the legacy and to explore how far Welsh guidance needs to be distinctive and whether there are special issues arising from Welsh culture, environment and history that should be reflected in the form and content of planning guidance. The purpose of this project was to investigate aspects of conservation area management to achieve quality environments in Wales, and to look especially at the ways in which the new unitary authorities are developing (or not developing) strategic approaches to conservation, development control and enhancement. This report is the outcome of what was conceived as the first stage of the study: data gathering and assessment. This provides a basis to move to a second stage with case studies drawn from a variety of conservation area contexts. Taken together this material should provide a picture of the way in which conservation areas are managed in practice, in terms of human and cash resources, as well as the practical tools adopted and the policies that LPAs have developed. It will identify the conflicts that can exist in theory and in practice between conservation objectives and wider urban policy. The study should also point to the opportunities that may exist in the future to do the job better. The current situation, as this report suggests, is very mixed and at times confusing. For instance, while some conservation areas have benefited from significant investment since 1996, this has often been a by-product of a wider regeneration initiative. In practice professionals suggest that resources have contracted rather than expanded. At the present moment it appears that the best way to lever resources into conservation area enhancement is in the context of a scheme that may have differing and perhaps conflicting objectives, focused for example on economic development or general environmental enhancement.8 This situation is illustrated by the fact that while in some authorities conservation officers have a degree of autonomy within
1.2 Issues
The policy issues to be addressed are various: policy making and its content the identification of conservation areas and their boundaries appraisals, designations and alterations to boundaries, and reviews public involvement enhancement, regeneration and resources. The designation and the management of conservation areas have developed in a pragmatic manner in both England and Wales, with different authorities adopting their own procedures, supported by statutory guidance. The nature and quality of this guidance is often questioned. For example, guidance is very broad in indicating both the scale and content of areas suitable for designation; and at the same time it has generated heated legal debate over the statutory obligation to preserve or enhance their character or appearance. It is also noteworthy that while guidance in Wales is confined mainly to one circular, in England professionals now have available a more sophisticated body of advice on appraisal, assessment and management from English Heritage.4 It is probable that many conservation areas are managed successfully, but it often seems that this success depends on circumstances providing the right opportunities in terms of resources, enlightened professionals and willing developers.5 It is pertinent to bear in mind that preservation of character could determine a narrow agenda based on maintaining the historic integrity of the build-
an identified team, in others (where specific expertise exists) they are part of a wider grouping for whom conservation area work is a subsidiary task. It is clearly the case that conservation area management and enhancement is not something that can be pursued successfully in isolation, and therefore there is a need to link conservation in urban areas at least with urban design projects, regeneration programmes and other area initiatives. It may well be that rural areas demand a different approach, however. Joined-up thinking is needed to relate conservation area objectives to the consideration of physical quality, social viability, economic vitality and the wider concern for sustainability. Parfect and Power have stated that our architectural heritage should be seen as belonging to the same category of dwindling commodity as building land.9 As Wales develops its new democracy, and as the Assembly engages in an exploration of the planning guidance it has inherited from Whitehall and the Welsh Office, it may be timely for officials and Assembly Members (AMs) to consider the results of this survey and it will hopefully be of help in shaping new procedures and structures to achieve quality in the environment of town and countryside alike. Punter and Carmona argue that in doing so we should aim not just to preserve a representative history of architecture and urban design, but to enable the survival of a working history that has a practical relationship to the modern-day lives of everyday people in communities throughout Wales.10
1
Cf. Kelvin Campbell and Robert Cowan, Making urban design deliver good places, Urban Environment
Today, 70 (13 May 1999) 2 Welsh guidance (Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy (1st revision, 1999) states that policies
should clearly state what it is about the character or appearance of an area that should be preserved or enhanced, and set out how this objective is to be achieved; development plans should integrate conservation policies with wider policies for an area, the detailed statement of proposals for a specific conservation area should not itself be part of the development plan but plans should set out how detailed assessment statements and proposals relate to the plan.
3
David Hickling, Conservation areas: designating, appraising and defending, Planning, 24 September English Heritage, Conservation area practice: English Heritage Guidance on the Management of Conserva-
1999.
4
tion Areas (1995) 5 Cf. RTPI, The Character of Conservation Areas (1993)
6
Preservation and enhancement, character and appearance are not, of course, necessarily alterna-
tives; the relationship between these terms and the significance of the conjunctions deployed in the act, bedevilled caselaw for several years following the Steinberg judgement of 1989.
7 8
Sherban Cantacuzino, Urban design in context, Built Environment, 22:4 (1996), 260. Peter Larkham suggests that in all cases the overwhelming motivation for change has been the prospect
of economic gain. In summarising aspects of one case study he notes that Worcesters Crowngate centre illustrated a degree of unanimity by decision-makers that large-scale development was acceptable and that one listed structure, the Sunday School, should nevertheless be removed. There was less unanimity over some details of the scheme, particularly the changes imposed at a late stage by third parties, principally the Fire Officers requirements for changes to the entranceway within an historic frontage building. Peter Larkham, Conservation
and the City (1996), 200.

9 10
Michael Parfect and Gordon Power, Planning for Urban Quality (1997), 87. J.V. Punter and M. Carmona, The Design Dimension of Planning (1997), 296.
2 Survey design
he aim of the study, conceived as the first phase in a longer investigation, was to explore the context in which planning authorities and their conservation staff operate; to look at the process of review and the outcome of conservation area reviews; to examine the nature and form of the policies developed to promote conservation; and to ask questions about the way authorities implement their policies, the tools they deploy, and the funding that is sought and allocated. It would look, too, at how far there were perceived linkages between policy and sustainability as a fundamental criterion in the evaluation process.
The work was based on a questionnaire survey mailed in July 1999 to all 25 of the authorities with responsibility for conservation areas in Wales (the unitary authorities plus the three National Parks). Only two authorities failed to respond.1 The majority of respondents offered detailed information quickly (by and large) and often under pressure from other demands on their time. The questionnaire sought information under the following heads: Context: human resources, specialisms, liaison, numbers of conservation areas managed, patterns of designation. Review: process and frequency of review, content of review, outcomes Policies: content of conservation policies, documentation Implementation tools, financial resources, relationship to sustainability objectives.
2.1 Quantitative and qualitative data

This mainly quantitative data was to be supplemented by the comments sought relating to qualitative questions. This aspect of the study was focused on perceptions of the effectiveness of government legislation and guidance; specific issues confronted in designating and managing conservation areas at the local level; and attitudes to funding, design and community engagement. Many authorities went out of their way to be helpful and thorough in supplying quantitative information; and helpful and sometimes robust responses were received from a significant number of respondents to the qualitative survey.
Data analysis related to different aspects of the study, from establishing factual information about conservation areas and LPAs, such as numbers of staff, or the number, size and nature of the conservation areas within an authority, to eliciting information and views that relate to policy formulation.
Carmarthenshire County Council and Brecon Beacons National Park
3 Findings
he unitary authorities vary considerably in their physical structure as well as spatial distribution. They range from predominantly urban centres such as Cardiff and Swansea to the National Parks. Others, for example the Vale of Glamorgan, combine urban and rural characteristics. In analysing the questionnaire responses it is therefore necessary to bear in mind the need to compare like with like for instance when comparing the staffing of LPAs, or the particular policy issues which LPAs identify as significant.
3.1 The 1990 study

In 1990 the Civic Trust for Wales carried out a modest research exercise in which an attempt was made to assess the impact of the Civic Amenities Act on Wales. At that date there were 362 conservation areas in Wales, but it was clear that sometimes designation amounted to very little. What mattered was whether designation was followed by action based on the obligation to plan positively for a conservation areas future well being. Earlier research (notably by English Heritage) had concluded that there was considerable local variation both in the readiness of LPAs to designate conservation areas, in the first place, and then to be proactive about the management of these assets.1 The sample study found that Authorities varied considerably in terms of their commitment to the designation process; Authorities often perceived themselves to be severely constrained in the resources that they could allocate to conservation area enhancement; The local plan was the main vehicle for the setting out of conservation area policy, but there was a considerable variation in terms of approach and level of detail from one plan to another in Wales Only six out of the sample of 22 authorities had adopted article 4 directions, and there was a concern that the whole process was too cumbersome to be worthwhile.


Only four of the 22 councils operated conservation area advisory groups that enabled people drawn from the community to have an input into the decisionmaking process This analysis provides a rough and ready baseline for the present study in the context of conservation area management.
3.2 Designation and appraisal

There are now 502 conservation areas in Wales (31 October 1999 figures). The number per authority is shown in table 1. The pattern by which Welsh conservation areas have been designated in the three decades since the 1967 Act is revealed in table 2. This shows that the peak decade for designations was the 1970s; there were 95 designations in the 1980s and a further 122 in the 1990s. One extreme is represented by Blaenau Gwent, with one conservation area; the other is that of Powys (the largest authority in surface area) with 54 designated conservation areas. Many of these are designations made in the 1990s by the former Montgomery District Council. The mean number of conservation areas per authority is twenty, but this does not reveal the true situation, since factors affecting the historic pattern of designation appear to include the size of an authority, its rurality, whether or not it covers a former industrial area, whether or not it is large and urban (Cardiff, Newport), whether or not, as in the Vale of Glamorgan, there is an historic nucleated settlement pattern. There is also evidence that some of the pre-1996 authorities were simply less interested than others in conservation areas per se.

Table 2: Conservation area designations by decade
out for their activity rate. All the PCNP areas (there are thirteen) are post 1996; as are seven out of the thirty areas in Monmouthshire. Seventeen authorities have undertaken a programme of appraisal since 1996. This activity is not necessarily related to the number of conservation areas an authority manages. All the 34 conservation areas in Denbighshire have been appraised recently, as have all six in Neath-Port Talbot. Flintshire has appraised fourteen of its 32 areas. In Monmouthshire (where designation has been active), only one out of 30 has been appraised, while in Gwynedd none of the 40 areas has been appraised, and in Cardiff one has been appraised out of 25 (appendix 1, table 8). The questionnaire asked respondents to comment on the frequency and context within which they review and appraise their conservation areas (appendix 1, table 9). Eight authorities stated baldly that this was an activity that could be carried out only when time and money were available. Three stated that it was an activity carried out when necessary. Two authorities (Gwynedd and Pembrokeshire County Council) have established a rolling programme of review, while others relate review to plan preparation (sometimes qualifying this by the availability of time and money or by the matter becoming necessary). There is no consistency here, apart from the obvious fact that for most respondents, scarcity of resources limits the activity they can carry out. This is an important observation given the obligations in the act and the need for development plans to establish criteria for the designation of new conservation areas, review existing boundaries, and control the demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings. Development plans need to include firm conservation area policies based on a clear definition of the special architectural or historic interest that underlies the justification of designation. English Heritage has drawn atten11
Table 1 Conservation areas by local planning authority, October 1999
In some cases lack of interest in the early years of designation seems to have been followed by a catching up exercise. In others (the Vale of Glamorgan, for example) designation seems to have reached saturation point early on. Eight authorities in the sample have designated conservation areas since local government reorganisation in 1996, amongst which Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and Monmouthshire stand
10
tion to the significance of written appraisals of character and appearance as a basis of development plan policies and control decisions.2
3.4 Liaison
With the constraints on planning departments (or the entities into which they have been assimilated given a recent pattern of corporate restructuring within local authorities) it might seem that few conservation staff could work in isolation from development control, development planning or special project work. However, (Appendix 1, table 6) seven respondents thought their conservation staff liaised only occasionally with other teams within the authority, and one respondent suggested this never happened. In fourteen cases the liaison was frequent. Nine authorities noted frequent or occasional liaison with conservation area advisory committees, and thirteen authorities never do so. One authority did not answer this question. Interest in such committees does not seem to have grown by very much since the Civic Trusts 1990 study found that only four of the 23 authorities sampled made use of this procedure to involve the public in their conservation work. On the other hand most authorities found that their work involves frequent (fourteen cases) or occasional (eight cases) contact with Cadw. Other comments about the interface with Cadw were made in the context of the September seminar; these are considered below, when issues relating to legislation and guidance are considered. The record of this seminar is given at appendix 2.
3.3 Staffing
The questionnaire sought to establish the level of expertise available to planning authorities and to gauge how far this was organised in specific conservation teams. Information was gathered both on the nature of the professional skills employed within authorities and on the relationship between staff with responsibility for conservation and other colleagues. Overall the pattern of human resourcing seems patchy and under strength for the task in hand.

Table 3: Expertise available to local planning authorities
Table 3 gives an overall view of the range of specialisms available to planning authorities. For example, seven authorities employ architects on conservation area work; six can draw on the services of urban designers; seventeen deploy planners and eleven specified that they had staff with specific training in conservation. The negative view of this evidence is represented by the statistics that eight authorities had no conservationtrained staff working on conservation areas; four authorities allocated no planners to this work; and only seven authorities used staff with architectural training. Overall, planners dominate teams, but they do not necessarily specialise in conservation. The precise mix of specialisms demands a closer look, as does the size of team in relation to the number of conservation areas that an authority manages. Powys, the largest unitary authority by area, with the largest number of conservation areas, and a history of recent designation activity, has no designated team of conservation staff. Torfaen, with five conservation areas, possesses no specific conservation expertise and generic planners handle the job. Rhondda Cynon Taff has no conservation team. Caerphilly has no team but one qualified conservation officer. Monmouthshire (with thirty conservation areas) employs a conservation officer who can seek advice from development control and development plans colleagues. At the other end of a short scale lies Cardiff, where two architects, five urban designers and three planners (amongst whom are two conservation specialists) work within an urban design group; and Wrexham, with a team of four two planners, one urban designer, and 1.5 technicians, including one conservation-trained specialist.
12
3.5 Funding
Appendix 1, table 18 summarises the survey data relating to funding of conservation area enhancement work. Not every authority was able to supply comparable information, and further investigation may be useful to break down more accurately the categories applied. Other funding, however, generally related to investment secured via Heritage Lottery funding, European and WDA regeneration funding. Central government money equates generally to programmes such as Town Schemes (and it is this that has generally levered out private sector contributions). The figures indicate that over the past three years there has been a considerable variation in the scale of investment in conservation area enhancement activity from authority to authority. Where very large sums have been expended, in Conwy, Newport, Swansea or Rhondda Cynon Taff, for instance, this has been generally a byproduct of broader projects, where authorities have been successful in obtaining major regeneration and tourism funding. Bridgend could identify no funds earmarked specifically for conservation area work in the past three years but noted that 1M had been spent on pedestrianisation works in two conservation areas as part of a separate initiative. What stands out equally dramatically is the fact that several authorities have either identified no internal funds for enhancement work, or in other cases the budgets are very small compared to the responsibility they have inherited. This seems to be especially the case with regard to Snowdonia National Park, Monmouthshire County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, Swansea and the Vale of Glamorgan Councils.
13


The picture these statistics draw may be a little misleading, since councils clearly spend cash within conservation areas other than that earmarked for enhancement proposals or obtained via special projects. Investment might be expected, for instance, through a highways budget, or via the housing department. It has been pointed out (in the course of the seminar) that the definition of specific funding depends very much on how one defines conservation. In Cardiff there is no longer a specific conservation areas budget and funding is sought from other strategies. The question remains as to whether such funds are spent positively, bringing benefits in conservation terms. It has been argued that in some cases the deployment of housing renewal money can work contrary to conservation interests, with different criteria being adopted by housing departments from those that would be acceptable to conservation staff. Several participants in the seminar emphasised the need for funding that is specifically earmarked for management and enhancement programmes if conservation area management is to be effectively targeted and become proactive rather than reactive as is frequently the case at present. Such comments, taken together with information collected on the relationships between conservation teams and other disciplines within local authorities, emphasise the need to consider the relationships amongst professionals within management structures, and perhaps especially the degree to which there is joint working between conservationists and urban designers to aid funding allocations and to integrate programmes. The relationship between conservation and urban design specialists is considered further below.
Table 4: Outcomes of conservation area reviews

Table 5: Outcomes of conservation area reviews
Frequency would appear to be related to the capacity to undertake review, as well as to the number of conservation areas for which an authority has responsibility. Planning authorities remain sceptical about the efficacy of article 4 directions, with only Cardiff, Denbighshire and Snowdonia identifying these as a frequent outcome of appraisal. The guidelines for such designations need to be reviewed. Twelve authorities saw the issuing of guidance as a frequent or occasional outcome; two authorities responded that this was never the case; nine did not answer the question. This begs the question as to why reviews were carried out in the first place if no guidance is issued. In twelve cases, appraisal led frequently or occasionally to the revision of policy. In three cases this was stated never to happen, and in eight cases the question was not answered. Boundary review (which can encompass extension, reduction or no alteration) is a common outcome of appraisal; only two authorities indicated that the process had led to de-designation. The data was missing from seven authorities. Given the limited interest in Article 4 directions, the question what do Article 4 directions cover? had a somewhat restricted relevance. However, the response is summarised in Appendix 1, tables 11 and 12, which indicate that the principle foci of controls are the replacement of doors and windows and the replacement or removal of roofs or chimneys. Five authorities also mentioned exterior colour schemes. Ten authorities had not made use of directions, and several did not return a response to some or all of these questions, indicating a limited interest in the matter.
15
3.6 Conservation area reviews: content and outcomes

Table 4 gives an analysis of the content of conservation area reviews. It suggests that the review of the suitability of buildings for listing within conservation areas is quite rare and that most authorities continue to rely on the survey work organised by Cadw to ensure that the list is up to date. All but one authority, however, undertook character appraisals, within which they identified and/or assessed the quality and significance of landmark features and vistas. In this sense, although the quality of reviews has not been considered, the majority of respondents recognise the significance that section 54A attaches to appraisal, as a basis for policy-making, enhancement proposals, and development control work. Table 5 analyses the activities that authorities identified as the outcome of appraisals. A number of points stand out: Enhancement schemes are an outcome of appraisals in fourteen out of 23 authorities (only four authorities stated that they are a frequent outcome Caerphilly, Denbighshire, Pembrokeshire and Torfaen). This should be noted in the context of the statutory obligation to bring forward from time to time proposals for the preservation or enhancement of a conservation area.
14

3.7 Policies
In a question distinct from the one that assessed the consequences of appraisals, the survey sought to analyse the form and content of local authority policies for conservation areas. It did not look in detail at the documents themselves; the analysis so far has been based on the information supplied by the respondents. Appendix 1, tables 13 and 14, summarises the type of document used to publish policies and analyse by authority the relevance of local plan, UDP (by no means all Welsh authorities have deposited their first draft UDPs), supplementary guidance and strategy reports. Inevitably the local plan and the UDP contain (or will contain) relevant policies, intended by current planning guidance to be of the broad brush approach. Twelve authorities reported that they currently make use of supplementary planning guidance; eight have made use of strategy reports. Cardiff, Denbighshire, Newport, Pembrokeshire County, and the Vale of Glamorgan have made use of both SPG and strategy reports. It should be remembered that supplementary documents, keyed into the development plan, are intended to be the vehicles for detailed policies for conservation area management, development control, and enhancement. For many authorities there is still some way to go in developing these tools. Table 6 provides information that helps to gauge the content of conservation policies (wherever they are located). One could have extended the questionnaire to focus on other environmental features boundary materials, setting, or natural/cultivated features, for instance. These would deserve analysis in the context of a closer look at the methodology of appraisal. Thirteen authorities specified policies relating to landmark buildings Twenty authorities specified policies relating to listed buildings Fifteen authorities mentioned policies relating to listable or key buildings Three authorities referred to policies affecting neutral or negative buildings Two authorities had considered the issue of permeability Ten authorities had movement policies that considered pedestrianisation Nine authorities had policies for traffic calming One authority had a policy for dedicated traffic lanes. It should be noted that traffic calming and pedestrianisation are not simply issues for the big city; they may be relevant, too, in a rural village or a small town environment, as is exemplified by both Gwynedd and Snowdonia National Park. Two authorities had no policies in any of the categories suggested.3
Table 6: Outcomes of conservation area reviews Respondents were asked for information on the content of conservation policies as outcomes of reviews.
16
17
3.8 Implementation and guidance

Urban design literature emphasises the role of area-based studies and site briefs as tools to influence the form, content and character of development; to provide means of influencing environmental quality; and to provide a focus not simply on individual sites or buildings but on the spaces between them. These are methods that might seem to have a special relevance to conservation area management, whether applied within a conservation area, to a conservation area as a unit, or, more importantly, to place conservation areas in the wider urban design context. It is in the development and deployment of such tools that the most effective linkages are likely to be possible between conservation professionals and colleagues from other design disciplines. At this stage the study has not sought to analyse exemplar documents; but an attempt is made as an initial step to quantify the interest of authorities in their use. The information gathered is summarised in Appendix 1, tables 15 and 16. Briefly it identified the following characteristics: Site development briefs are a rare factor in a conservation area context; they were cited by seven out of 23 councils Twelve respondents had made frequent or occasional use of area briefs Nineteen had made frequent (nine) or occasional (ten) use of planning or development briefs Three had made frequent use of urban design studies; nine had done so occasionally Conservation area character studies were a common tool, mentioned by seventeen authorities, and presumably they could be generated conveniently from appraisals or designation assessments Permeability and/or legibility studies had been undertaken by seventeen authorities, though as the preceding analysis suggests, this had not been an activity with a significant policy outcome, with limited use of briefs or specialist studies. The presentation of these figures in this table also shows how the frequency with which each tool is deployed in specific authorities has been interpreted. Thus Cardiff made frequent use of each model apart from site development briefs; Conwy made occasional use of planning or development briefs and frequent use of permeability or legibility studies but it did not utilise the other models. Pembrokeshire, which had been very proactive in designation, mirrors Cardiff in its use of the suggested tools. The study also investigated how far authorities use their expertise to offer guidance to owners or developers on specific topics. Responses are summarised in appendix 1, table 17. Little guidance is offered on the availability of skilled crafts18
men, and no authority (despite the impact of highways design and signage on the appearance of a conservation area) had issued advice on traffic or directional signage. Two authorities (Cardiff and Swansea) had advice on public art. Four authorities issued advice on forecourt treatment. Ten authorities had guidance on outdoor advertising and eight on exterior treatments. Perhaps not surprisingly, guidance on form and massing, shop front design, roofs and chimneys, and doors and windows, was more common. The matrix in this table exemplifies the range of advice offered by each respondent, from the comprehensive (Cardiff) to the minimal (Torfaen) and the completely missing (Gwynedd, Monmouthshire, and Neath Port Talbot). These responses need to be analysed further within the context of the environmental character and pattern of settlement of the authorities concerned, a factor likewise reflected in the number of conservation areas managed.
Fig 2 County Offices, Caernarfon A modern building using traditional construction in an historic context.
3.9 Sustainability
In retrospect it seems that the question on sustainability was poorly worded. The intention was to explore how far council policy-making had applied general sustainability principles to conservation area practice. The majority of respondents referred to the general policies that have been incorporated in UDPs or local plans. One council stated that sustainability is at the heart of the UDP and runs through all council policies. They are effective.4 Several admitted that whereas general policies were in place, there was no system of monitoring to measure their effectiveness. A minority of councils apparently had no sustainability policies. One noted that, while not specific to conservation area work, the local plan encouraged the re-use and rehabilitation of older buildings, and emphasised the need to find relevant uses for listed buildings. In this case, however, no monitoring was carried out.5 Only one respondent mentioned specific policies encouraging sustainability in a conservation area context; these were to encourage the re-use of older buildings and to reject UPVC in favour of timber detail.6 It can be concluded that there is a need to think clearly about how sustainability can be built into a policy regime for conservation areas. It seems a simple enough concept, but is in practice complex and with many ramifications when applied to the built environment, even more so in the context of urban regeneration or conservation area management. Successful evaluation could depend on creative accounting and it might seem sensible to seek to develop an agreed methodology that could measure outputs against inputs, and monitor the effectiveness of general or specific
19
policies in relation to sustainability. Planning applications would require a sustainability statement for certain categories of development. Translating UDP principles into this more specific context might lead to progress. One means might be to ensure a regular cycle of conservation area appraisal. Another might be to look at the requirements placed on developers. Nowadays buildings may be remodelled completely in ten years time, demolished in twenty, or listed in fifty. A well-designed building therefore needs to be robust, and capable of adaptation to different uses, accommodating changes of use several times during its lifetime. This objective could be introduced at the design stage as one of the criteria for appraisal within a sustainability evaluation. It also seems clear that without adequate funding to maintain the fabric of conservation areas, both buildings and public realm, no conservation area is likely to be managed sustainably. At a less tangible level, it may also be argued that preservation and enhancement of the local character represented in urban fabric, through helping to maintain a sense of place, is an integral aspect of a sustainable community and urban environment.
3.10 Perceptions
So far this analysis has considered quantifiable data. In addition to this each authority was asked to submit qualitative comments on a number of topics. Not everyone who responded took this opportunity. Lack of appreciation of specialised areas obviously influenced the detail of some responses. In others there may have been a degree of officer reticence to express opinions of which management might have taken a dim view. In a number of cases, nonetheless, the responses were informative and often robust. The questionnaire asked for observations on the following issues: the effectiveness of government conservation area legislation and guidance; issues relating to designation; issues relating to conservation area management.;; issues relating to funding; the significance of design this attracted little commen; public and community involvement in conservation area control, policy making and enhancement; and any matters deemed to have been omitted from the questionnaire. Several comments were made about legislation and guidance. More than one respondent felt that both sources contained loopholes that made the role of the
20
planning authority problematic. The guidance offered by English Heritage was felt to be helpful compared with the Welsh guidance, which is limited to a circular that is derived from English PPG 15. It was felt that guidance needed to respond to circumstances in Wales and to the specific context of the Welsh historic built environment. One authority suggested that government in Wales needed to offer a comparable lead, and that Cadw should undertake this role.7 Another authority argued that the legislative framework is weak because there is no pressure on planning authorities to prepare enhancement schemes, and that there is a need for more guidance on methods of appraisal to ensure consistency of approach across Wales.8 There was concern too, regarding permitted development rights, seen by one respondent as so weak that they encourage destruction of character.9 The Shimizu judgement has been taken account of in the Secretary of States directions in circular 1/98, but it was argued that the guidance remains poor in the aftermath of this decision, and that more controls are needed. The statistical evidence of reticence in applying Article 4 directions was reflected in observations made. Securing directions was regarded as continuing to be difficult and was hindered further by resourcing issues.10 One authority commented that conservation area status is a very weak means of protecting an area of architectural or historic interest; designation is often a response to a threat of demolition, but without Article 4 directions it remained hard to prevent the erosion of character.11 Guidance from the Assembly was necessary which would carefully balance conservation needs, urban design and regeneration. The issue of funding was also seen as critical, and the information gathered about both staffing and capital investment must be seen in the context of the perceptions of those who struggle to do their job with limited resources. In general, securing funding to implement enhancement strategically was seen as problematic. This was a point made principally with regard to the position within LPAs, but it was also commented that, if Cadws staffing were to be strengthened, there would have to be more effective liaison between that body and the planning authorities, and, perhaps, more effective co-ordination between conservation bodies in Wales. It was suggested that conservation area management could not be achieved solely through the development control process, and that enhancement required a proactive approach facilitated by a dedicated budget. However, the picture with regard to local authority budgets and human resource allocation was regarded as increasingly bleak. Enhancement strategies required resources that were too often absent.12 Perhaps these could be drawn from a range of sources, including urban design and regeneration programmes. One respondent noted that the duty to designate was placed on local government but that funding was actually managed by central government with little concern expressed for the priorities advanced by councils. It was suggested that there should be more consultation between Cadw and the LPAs over the spending and management of conservation area grants. How could a planning authority enable enhancement when it has very little money to offer? The ability of local authorities to allocate internal funding to conservation area strategies was perceived to be compromised by competition from other spending departments. The unitary authorities have responsibility for former county functions, and these appear to have exerted pressure on the resources that the old districts had identified for conservation area
21
work. One respondent noted that the outcome of this situation was that the work of conservation staff has become reactive, and land-use oriented at the expense of repair and enhancement strategies. Funding had declined significantly since local government reorganisation (in fact in this authority the budget for conservation area work had been nil for the past three years).13 In this context it was argued that external funding was generally limited to specific initiatives or to a limited number of conservation areas; the geographical allocation of resources was very patchy. The comment was also made that lottery funding aids regeneration areas rather than the repair and landscaping work that might be desirable in conservation areas.14 These problems were compounded, in respondents eyes, by the difficulty they experienced within their authorities in getting a corporate approach to conservation area management. It was hard to persuade colleagues to prioritise conservation area enhancement in the context of other demands. They were often perceived as cosmetic exercises, but they can be essential in urban design terms. Several comments were made about the relationship between lack of financial resources and problems experienced in getting either elected members or the public at large to appreciate the impact of designation. In the case of one authority this was seen to lead to different parts of the authority pursuing conflicting goals the impact of housing group repair schemes was cited as an example. In another authority the policies of the highways department were regarded as inimical to conservation objectives. In a wider context, the view was expressed that public consultation and enthusiasm were essential to the success of conservation area policy. Lack of money was seen as an obstacle to this public engagement, for example the cash costs (as well as the staff time) involved in consultation over enhancement proposals. In any case, without money, public aspirations could not be readily supported. In one authoritys response, this situation made it difficult to involve the public in conservation area issues to any meaningful degree.15
These impressions were reinforced by the discussion in the seminar at which an initial presentation of the survey data was offered. The audience represented a mixture of LPA staff and private sector professionals. Points highlighted included: The pressure of other demands on LPA budgets In this context, the need to ensure effective cross-working amongst groups and departments within LPAs, while protecting conservation objectives That joint working of this kind could not be achieved within a National Park Authority, where other local authority specialisms are not employed. However, beyond these points the seminar was the platform for a wider discussion of national policy issues, and the problem of public understanding of, and engagement with, the built heritage. The concerns raised at this point clearly connected with the observations these and other professionals had raised in their questionnaire responses. The final section of this report considers these general issues alongside more specific conclusions and recommendations arising from the survey. It also places this discussion in the context of wider thinking about the effectiveness of conservation area designation. In England, the report of the Urban Task Force concentrated minds considerably and emphasised the importance of the relationship between conservation, development and social renewal. Lord Rogers argues, for instance, that development on brownfield land and the recycling of existing buildings must become more attractive than building on greenfield land. He also suggested that
Historic buildings and townscapes are important assets. However, their full worth and contribution, and indeed their long term futures, can only be realised if the buildings are in productive use.
3.11 Crisis - what crisis?

While not all authorities responded to this aspect of the questionnaire, the nature of the comments that were made seemed to represent the genuine concerns of the professionals at the sharp end. The overall picture was one of deep anxiety that opportunities were being lost to manage, protect and enhance the historic environment in a strategic manner, and in a way that would reflect and engage public aspirations. The picture was one of crisis, deepening over the past three years, despite isolated examples where there had been significant funding investment in specific conservation areas as a by-product of other projects. In this context it was difficult to point critically at the variation in good practice across Welsh authorities. The general scene seemed to be one of a struggle to implement the legislation effectively and in the light of up-to-date thinking on tools for strategic management, a struggle exacerbated by low funding, conflicting priorities, and less than effective legislation and guidance.
22
He makes a case for the revision of PPG 15, and claims that the listing process (albeit that 80 percent of listed building consents are granted) is perceived to be a barrier to success national and local conservation bodies must work to find ways of reducing the deterrent effect whilst ensuring quality solutions. A further solution is seen in the harmonising of VAT rates on refurbishment and new build, either by removing VAT on conversion and refurbishment or by introducing zero-rating.16 Action on VAT is something for the UK government, but there is no reason why this cause should not be promoted by the National Assembly, and the Assembly has considerable power to tailor planning guidance to the Welsh context, and create a framework in which the productive use of the historic built environment ensures a future for the buildings and townscapes that Wales wishes to cherish.
1 2 3
The Civic Trust for Wales, Conservation Areas (advice note) (1991) English Heritage, Conservation Area Appraisals (1997), p.2; WO Circular 61/96. Blaenau Gwent, Isle of Anglesey
23
4 5 6 7 8 9
Monmouthshire Torfaen Snowdonia National Park Pembrokeshire Gwynedd Anglesey Conwys comments, for example. Cf Pembrokeshire, Newport, Denbighshire. Newport Cf. Pembrokeshire, Newport, Anglesey, Flintshire, Conwy, Vale of Glamorgan The latter comments are based on the Vale of Glamorgan response in particular. Snowdonia, Conwy Denbighshire, Pembrokeshire, Newport Richard Rogers (Lord Rogers of Riverside), Towards an Urban Renaissance (1999), 11, 251-2, 255.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
24
4 Looking to the future
t is encouraging to see that there are some good prospects for the future if the current options are consolidated and appropriate procedures adopted. These vary from procedures to be adopted by the National Assembly, to the introduction of Unitary Development Plans as well as the adoption of an integrated approach to regeneration, conservation and urban design.
4.1 Summary of recent developments

This survey has looked at a number of key issues; it has not, however, engaged closely with the mundane problems of development control in conservation areas. This is not, therefore, the place for a re-appraisal of the conservation area concept as such. There seems to be an increasing view amongst professionals, especially in the aftermath of the Urban Task Force report, that current guidance needs revision and should be tailored to the context of the new century. The forthcoming review of strategy for the historic environment in England by central government, however, seems to place PPG 15 on the historic environment and PPG 16 on archaeology off limits.1 Meanwhile, the conclusions of the 1992-3 RTPI survey continue to resonate. It was suggested then that conservation areas could continue to make a significant contribution to the protection of the built environment. There was a need to tidy up the legislation, to adopt good practices in terms of assessment, management and policy making, and to broaden public understanding of the aims and objectives of conservation area designation.2 In this context one should note the reports emphasis on Character as a major strength of the British conservation system, with conservation areas drawing strength from their recognition of local character and historic heritage The importance of a rolling programme of dynamic management that is linked to the development plan and integrates conservation area policies with other relevant policies, on, for example, redundant buildings Regular review of designations, boundaries and policies
29
The role of character appraisals and management statements (which the RTPI thought should be integral to the plan), as a source of information for residents, landowners and potential developers The utility of guidelines and site development briefs that bind policy to practical enhancement opportunities The need to promote the importance of conservation to other departments within local authorities , and the need for conservation teams to have access to budgets which can pump-prime enhancement The need for an adequate level of funding and staffing to ensure that a range of activities can be introduced beyond development control and local plan activities in a proactive role The promotion of education and information programmes as an essential basis to win public support. Some of the problems that the RTPI diagnosed in 1993 seem as valid in the context of this survey as they were seven years ago. The report expressed a fear that local government reorganisation would impose a squeeze on funds for conservation activities. It regarded the law as fragmented and incomplete; it queried the potency of what was then draft PPG 15, and suggested revisions to the GDO and Article 4 procedures. Also, as Martin Bradshaw (then RTPI President, but also Director of the Civic Trust) noted, perhaps the bottom-line issue was one of resources. Many of the authorities surveyed lacked a conservation officer.3 Ten years after the Civic Trust for Wales survey of conservation areas under the former districts, the same concerns were expressed in the course of this study lack of in-house expertise, lack of staff time and limited resources for enhancement schemes. Then, as now, authorities fought shy of conservation area advisory groups. The overall perception was a lot of good will towards conservation areas, but a frequent inability to put positive schemes for preservation and enhancement into place, however sensitively conservation area issues were treated in the course of plan preparation. Yet at the same time it was clear that conservation areas, for all the difficulties in the system, had enabled protection to be given to the cherished and the familiar natural and built environment, and had acted as an essential defence against blandness and anonymity in the local scene, and the uncontrolled demolition of buildings that contribute to the character and identity of communities.4 A number of conclusions have been identified in the discussion of the findings of this study. The current position with regard to the strategic management of conservation areas is mixed and patchy, with some authorities having more success than others in undertaking regular appraisal, but not so much with tackling enhancement work.
There has been a contraction in regular resources for proactive conservation activity, and this contraction is not redressed by occasional investments secured through other strategies. Some authorities lack specialists; others find it difficult to integrate the work of their conservation professionals within a corporate approach to the built environment. Professionals remain dissatisfied with the framework of legislation and guidance, and compare the range of advice available from official bodies in Wales unfavourably with the English Heritage product. Professionals remain dissatisfied with the Article 4 regulations. While some authorities are issuing guidance (in greater or lesser detail) to communities and interested parties, and are making use of site development studies and area briefs, other authorities have been unable to adopt these practices systematically. Resource constraint affects not simply management activity, but, crucially, it also impacts on the engagement of public understanding and support. The overall impression is that while there is a desire to promote good practice amongst the professionals engaged in conservation area work, there is growing pessimism about the context within which they are working and the resources which they are able to utilise. There is a shared sense that conservation is something to which lip service is too often paid, rather than prioritised. It is under heavy pressure from competing needs within the new authorities, yet there is a clear desire that conservation should be central rather than peripheral to the thinking of government in London and Cardiff. Discussions with staff involved in conservation area management and consideration of current practice also prompt thoughts on the relationship between conservation area management, enhancement, and wider urban design issues.
4.2 Conservation areas and urban design

The foregoing section paints a rather depressing picture. However, a more positive perspective also emerges when the work that a number of authorities are undertaking in relation to conservation area appraisal is considered. Clearly, in some authorities, and not necessarily just in those that are best resourced and boast multidisciplinary teams, the appraisal of conservation areas goes beyond a simple identification of historic buildings, and takes on the analytical approach to environments that involve the skills of the urban designer alongside that of the conservation architect and regeneration specialist. Table 6 for instance, shows that review often takes account of landmark features and key buildings, and in some authorities there has been a
30
31
preserving and enhancing character and appearance, and, thereby, give a sense of place and identity. As Nahoum Cohen points out:
All aspects of a single building, structural or architectural, dealing with its use, age or fitness are beyond the scope of planning for urban conservation. Urban issues begin where building and architectural considerations end. Urban issues deal with questions of ownership, land division, private and public property, as well as arrangement of urban space as a result of changes over time including changes of use the above aspects are the concern of the urban designer.7
Fig 3 Haverfordwest An enhanced historic central area, but is it sustainable?
consideration of pedestrian movement and traffic issues. Tables 15 and 16 (Appendix 1) indicate the use of urban design studies and permeability and legibility studies as part of the process of conservation area appraisal and planning. It is suggested that this integrated approach points to the way ahead; that conservation and urban design techniques should go hand in hand. As Alan Stones has pointed out, both modern conservation(ism) and urban design had common roots a generation ago in concerns on the one hand about the impact of development on historic environments and on the other about the failure of fragmented development to produce coherent places.5 The skills and approaches are surely symbiotic, and it is easy to agree with his suggestion that urban design, applied to existing townscapes and spaces, becomes an instrument of conservation policy. Likewise, good urban design surely requires an historical understanding as a foundation for both preservation and innovation.6 Bold and Guillery go on to point out that the conventional conservation process has been geared to site-specific recording, protection and regulation, rather than the overall assessment of an urban area. This has meant that however well a site is interpreted, contextual understanding is often absent. The ability to integrate, through urban design techniques, analysis of physical fabric with consideration of use, scale, quality and appearance of the spaces between and around buildings, together with the wider context of setting, provides the means to place historic buildings and sites in context, and in relationship also to the more ephemeral features such as signage or street furniture. Perhaps one should consider urban design in an even broader sense. PPG 1 identifies urban design as concerned also with the relationship of one part of a settlement with another, and with patterns of movement and activity. This points to the relevance, on the one hand of seeing a particular, designated historic environment as a significant part of a wider whole, and on the other hand of considering, within the appraisal of conservation areas, issues of movement, land use, activity and economic function. These latter points are relevant both to understanding the area one is trying to manage and enhance, as well as to pursuing this from the point of view of sustainable development. Economic vitality, the sustainable use of resources (buildings, spaces, natural features, land), achieving quality in the public realm, controlling traffic and making life easier for the pedestrian, all contribute to the process of
Eleanor Morris refers to the Royal Town Planning Institutes ten commandments for urban design, inspired by Francis Tibbalds when he was the Institutes President. Tibbalds proclaimed the need to consider places before buildings, and to concentrate on spaces; and he suggested that we need to have the humility to learn from the past and respect context. Morris concludes, however, that despite the forthright quality of these commandments, the planning profession in Britain has had difficulty in supporting urban design.8
Fig 5 Rural context Conservation area status is just as necessary as in urban areas
Understanding these relationships helps to enlarge the objectives of urban conservation, which are so often misunderstood, just as the listing of buildings has been misconstrued as a means to preserve a structure intact. The built environment needs to accommodate growth and change, provided that this process is respectful of context and the end product is an enhancement of the environment and the enjoyment people find in their surroundings. The more enterprising authorities thus see conservation as integral to good urban design, and urban design tools as relevant to conservation area planning. This is in the spirit of the 1967 Act, which emphasised the importance of the character of conservation areas, which is a product of historic fabric and of views and vistas, rights of way, green spaces, glimpses of countryside or waterfront. At the strategic level, conservation areas should be perceived as integral to the fabric of a town or city, and equally so to that of a rural neighbourhood. They should be contexts where basic urban design principles are applied. This approach is in harmony with the perception that conservation areas should evolve according to circumstances and that sensitively conceived, environmentally enhancing change should be seen as not just acceptable but desirable. It is consistent with the view that new buildings should be acceptable in conservation areas, providing that they are respectful of context, as argued recently by the English Historic Towns Forum. Also it is essential to help robust buildings gain enrichment and enhancement from new uses, enabling them to survive to exhibit the features of their history and uses. This approach is also consistent with the need to undertake appraisals on a cyclical basis. One systematic assessment of an areas character is not
32
33
enough, however broad the spectrum of features it takes into account. A cycle of appraisals is central to the objective of maintaining sustainable local environments, and provides the context for development and planning briefs that can shape and guide major changes to an area or its components. An urban design approach to the management of conservation areas suggests that part of the appraisal process should be the capacity to analyse and plan for the contributions to the historic environment not only of listed buildings and unlisted structures of obvious character, but of two other categories which are less generally recognised: neutral and negative buildings. These are just as essential for the urban fabric as landmarks and listed buildings for both aesthetic and functional reasons. Of course, planning for listed buildings is not a simple process, and the interpretation of the guidelines for granting listed building consent varies from authority to authority. In the case of listed buildings, however, the law implies that change that alters the features that led to listing should be resisted as much as is consistent with maintaining or identifying an economically viable use for a property. In the case of unlisted buildings in a conservation area context, matters can often be more complex still, since the legislation gives a form of protection to unlisted buildings that bears comparison with listed status. Article 4 directions can help to pre-empt difficult decisions and ensure the protection of historically accurate building detail; they remain a useful tool provided that they are not used indiscriminately if only the process of declaration could be simplified. In other cases a detailed appraisal and character statement, linked to clear planning objectives is the means to prevent haphazard decision-making, and give guidance in problematic situations. Should one retain a faade in order to maintain the look of a street? (Jonathan Richards defends the use of faadism on two fronts it represents a green approach in the use of finite natural resources as well as good design principles.10) Should demolition be allowed and a pastiche replacement supersede the original? What about an innovatory modern building, or a post-modern building, instead? The right answer is often hard to assess, but judging what is best can be a lot easier if a building, or group, or streetscape has been identified as being important for historic or contextual reasons. Neutral buildings, on the other hand, may have no special historic or architectural quality in their own right, but nonetheless provide a setting for landmark buildings, listed buildings, and unlisted buildings of special character and interest. The late Alfie Woods, speaking of his work in Birmingham, remarked that there were plenty of buildings of interest and character around, but not enough mundane or neutral buildings to provide an appropriate back-cloth for them. This back-cloth, it is submitted, is important and needs careful management as a setting for the special. In such a case local character and appearance are inherent. Negative buildings in conservation areas are dealt with differently. They should either be upgraded or removed given the chance, depending on their economic viability.
One concludes that conservation policies need to go beyond a focus on listed buildings, and must be sensitive to the role unlisted buildings can play in creating townscape value. An approach that interprets negative, neutral, or key unlisted buildings/groups and listed structures within the analysis of a conservation area has a lot to commend it as a means of preserving the historic built environment, with key buildings perhaps having the potential to become listed in the future, meanwhile gaining some interim special consideration and protection. In this context it is suggested that, as has been argued by respondents to the survey, there is a need for formal guidance to steer authorities in the right direction in appraising and maintaining conservation areas. Such guidance could take specific account of distinctive features within the Welsh historic built environment, and relate factors such as setting, landscape, and architectural and building detail to the wider issues inherent in an urban design approach. The Assembly needs to consider how such guidance can be drawn up and promulgated, and whether this might be a role for Cadw. The analogy is with the contribution English Heritage has made in this field. Guidance need not be overly prescriptive, but it should be concerned in large measure with process and procedures, enabling LPAs to develop and adopt supplementary planning guidance that is suited to local contexts, and helps them to protect, enhance and produce attractive environments based on local character and culture. In addition it would be helpful to have supplementary design guidance from the Assembly, probably in the form of a Technical Advice Note, that addresses urban design and suggests how LPAs can strike the right balance between conservation of a rich built heritage and the advantage to be gained from opportunities to be flexible in accommodating the dynamic nature of a healthy, diverse, and economically successful environment. It would also make sense in this context to give some thought to the development of a typology of conservation areas, one that could perhaps be offered within the framework of national guidance, that assists in the process of appraisal, management and design, and takes account of the inherent differences in rural, suburban and urban contexts. It would be far better, perhaps, to adopt this approach, than to attempt to grade conservation areas as one does listed buildings. Finally, it is suggested that the limited resources of Welsh local authorities hinder their ability to draw on appropriate expert advice in handling conservation related issues. This situation is discussed in the following section in relation to training, but, however training is developed and the skills gap addressed, there is a case for authorities being enabled to seek assistance in handling major proposals with conservation/design implications. This could be a role for a national design commission backed by the Assembly, or for a consultancy whose role the Assembly could endorse.
34
35
4.3 Training and specialisation

The thoughts that follow may be somewhat aspirational in view of the staffing issues that the survey has revealed. The designation of a conservation officer by a local authority is regarded as desirable but has often proved to be an unaffordable luxury. A conservation team seems to be something only a few authorities can sustain. At the same time generalist planners assigned to a conservation role are unable to call on the specialist guidance that would help them make a sound planning decision or develop an appropriate strategy. In fact the survey shows that in many cases authorities lack the staff to do the job. Respondents clearly felt themselves to be under pressure and to have insufficient resources of time and money to be other than reactive. The preceding discussion suggests that for sound methodological reasons as much as from the point of view of practical organisation within a local authority, managing conservation areas strategically is an agenda for multidisciplinary working not narrow specialisation. It may also be an arena where one should recognise that planners engaged in conservation often acquire high levels of knowledge and skill on the job, rather than through formal training in conservation or urban design, and that may be there is something that can be done to strengthen this aspect of their professional development. Moreover, since it is likely that financial restraints will continue to limit the range of expertise available to individual local authorities, there may well be a case for smaller authorities in particular to be enabled to seek assistance in the handling of major proposals with conservation implications. This could be a role for a national design commission or consultancy backed by the Assembly for Wales, as has been put forward above. It is generally accepted that practical experience in the field of urban conservation, as with development control, is best gained on the job, a training which is invaluable. An interest in heritage and architecture is perceived to be useful. In-post experience may then be supplemented by participation in conservation-oriented conferences organised by such bodies as the Society of Conservation Officers or the Historic Towns Forum. The prevalent scarcity of adequate and appropriate training can partly be explained by the fact that urban conservation is not given the priority it deserves. Moreover, it is clear both from this study and from wider experience that with some notable exceptions (especially where the historic built environment is essential to the tourism industry) many local authorities do not see the appointment of a conservation officer as a priority when weighed against other pressures on limited resources. The survey evidence indicates that currently there are twelve authorities within the 23 studied to date that have conservationtrained staff. Looking after the historic built environment should be a priority, sometimes even in the case of New Towns. This task requires specially trained staff who have adequate understanding of urban design and regeneration issues as well as of conservation. Formal professional training is essential if conservation is to be addressed properly. The form of this training deserves some thought, as does the nature of the delivery vehicle.
Generally urban conservation relates to architecture and urban design; specialism in this area is often regarded as requiring a certain artistic aptitude. However, a conservation officer does not produce the design of a development. She or he needs to evaluate and comment on projects, to react to submitted proposals, and to be proactive in preparing appraisals and planning and development briefs. This role requires training in observation, analysis and synthesis. In this process the trainee may need to become familiar with computer aided design (for example to assess the impact of proposals on skylines, views, vistas, and so forth). The training requires the development of critical/analytical rather than creative design skills. It is suggested that the above needs should be the focus of continuing professional development for conservation officers and should be reflected in the design of modular courses offered to planning students, and, indeed, to local authority members, with an interest in and commitment to conservation. At present most planning officers dealing with conservation matters are generalists who acquire their skills in post. There is often a skills gap within Welsh local authorities which is likely to affect the quality of the work undertaken in conservation area management. It is proposed that to address this gap relevant training institutions should consider whether they can meet this need with development of courses for generalist planners caught up in conservation issues. It would be possible for training to be offered by lead local authorities which possess the appropriate specialisms. Given the constraint in local authority resources, there may be a role for the NAW to be proactive in encouraging and supporting the provision of such training, at least on a pilot basis. Such professionally recognised formal training could be offered on an evening or day-release basis and attendance at a training institution to develop observational and analytical skills. This could be supplemented by a distance learning component. Support of this kind would enable every authority in Wales to retain the services of an officer with appropriate conservation skills, but with responsibilities varying according to circumstances.
4.4 Public involvement in conservation

The survey data reviewed above suggests that public understanding of conservation objectives and engagement in conservation area management and strategy-setting is much valued by local authority officers, but is seen to be hindered, for example, by lack of resources and the time and money needed for proper public consultation and education. Given the competing pressures on unitary authorities it is not going to be easy in the short term for councils to address this problem. However, it appears that more could be achieved if the system of conservation area advisory committees recommended by the circulars and PPG 15 were to be adopted by more authorities. Clearly some councils have found it difficult to cope when they have tried to co-opt and service a dozen or more advisory groups. It is suggested that the method of
36
37
involving a cross-section of relevant individuals and organisations on an authoritywide basis may be one way of implementing this system realistically. There is obviously a role for the Assembly in considering appropriate financial support for local authorities in the future. Money would certainly help not just to support advisory committees but to support the development of guidance material for the public in local communities, and to make consultation exercises more worthwhile. It is possible that it would be helpful also if the Assembly were to place additional weight on the role of conservation area advisory committees in its formal guidance, perhaps using computer aided design analysis to interpret development proposals. In the longer term, there is a wider need for a champion for the historic built environment in Wales. The Assembly, through the encouragement of design education could readily take on this role. Most people agree on the value of the historic landscape of the Welsh countryside, and arguably Welsh towns require as much loving care and attention, and this could be a target for public education in the wider sense.
1 2
Hickling, op.cit.; Tom de Castella, Putting the past into perspective, Planning, 18 February 2000.
RTPI, The Character of Conservation Areas (1993); cf. comments in Planning, 30 October 1992, and Planning week, 4 November 1992.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Quoted in Planning Week, 4 November 1992. The Civic Trust for Wales, Conservation Areas (1991), 67. Alan Stones, Conservation an inspiration, Urban Design Quarterly, 66 (April 1998). John Bold and Peter Guillery, The historical assessment of suburbs, ibid. Nahoum Cohen, Urban Conservation (1999), 34. Eleanor Smith Morris, British Town Planning and Urban Design (1997), 218. English Historic Towns Forum, Townscape in trouble. Conservation areas the Case for Change (Oxford, 1992).
Jonathan Richards, Faadism (1994). Richards notes how after 1972, when the demolition of listed buildings in conservation areas was brought under planning control and the Secretary of State was empowered to make grants or loans with a view to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of areas of townscape value, the notion of preserving or rebuilding faades emerged as part of conservation initiatives (ibid., 92).
10
38
5 A national vision?
s one of the respondents to this survey remarked, conservation areas are at the heart of our communities and their successful management is integral both to the protection of local and national character and identity, and to economic and social sustainability. Conservation should be an inherent consideration in any area regeneration strategy or urban design initiative. It cannot simply be reduced to reactive development control, but needs to be pursued proactively within the wider context of urban and rural quality and vitality, and the aspiration that together we can build sustainable communities and quality environments. How far can we make this happen, however, when so many perceive a lack of national vision for the built heritage? This report contains a wide range of specific conclusions and suggestions that will be found in the executive summary. In this final section an attempt is made to put forward a handful of general recommendations that appear to the authors to be relevant to this goal. The activities of local authorities have been analysed and the difficulties under which they labour have been examined. While there is room within authorities for self-scrutiny and a consideration of how far they prioritise and manage conservation area work, the critical role is that of national government - not just as funding provider and (secondary) legislator, but as a champion of the built heritage, of design quality, and of environmental education. The National Assembly has the potential to adopt an exciting and innovative role, in which the promotion and support of built environment education and conservation contribute to the higher goal of environmental and social sustainability. It has the capacity to take on an exciting mission, introducing procedures, policies and practices that are suited to the Welsh context, with aspects of need as well as best value being addressed. In the following ten overall recommendations, five are directed explicitly at the National Assembly of Wales.
39
5.1 Recommendations
General 1. Thepreservationandenhancementofconservation areas should be regarded as central to the issue of quality in town and country alike. Local and national government need to consider jointly how this aspiration can become a reality, the task properly resourced, and public support engaged through an appropriate public consultation process
staffing this area of their responsibility. At the local level this implies that a methodology should be adopted that enables inputs into conservation work to be measured more effectively against outputs, and assessed in physical terms, and in relation to social and economic sustainability criteria. Conservation, in this sense, needs to be appreciated as central to broader urban design and urban regeneration strategies. The Assembly 6. The Assembly should consider the form and content of the guidance available to LPAs in order to offer more effective guidance to practitioners and to ensure higher standards and greater consistency in quality. It should develop a format for the content and use of character appraisals and the design and management of mixed land uses within historic contexts, including the use of statements for sustainability, environmental impact, and design, and the use of planning and development briefs. It should also consider whether there should be formal pressure on LPAs to prepare enhancement strategies.
Conservation and urban design 2. Conservationandurbandesignaresymbiotic Westminster Bank activities. The good practice of some authorities extension, Cardiff needs to be adopted more widely. Appraisal A successful modern infill development in a traditional setting should take account not only of physical fea Arthur Thompson tures, but also of social and economic infrastructure, adopting management strategies that are keyed in to sustainability objectives.
Fig 6 National
7.
The Assembly should consider how far there is a role for a national design commission or similar body to promote high standards of conservation and design in Wales and to support and assist LPAs inter alia in shaping and controlling the development of conservation areas, and in building public understanding of the significance of the historic built environment in Wales.
Staffing and training 3. Within local authorities, conservation needs to be seen as a corporate rather than a sectional or specialist activity. It requires multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary working planners working with urban designers and conservation architects; built environment teams working closely with colleagues responsible for housing, highways and economic development.
8.
The Assembly should consider whether it has a role to play in addressing the skills gap within LPAs through support for an enhanced system of training, both for planning professionals and for necessary skills in arts and crafts.
9.
4.
There is a need to expand training for professionals engaged in conservation area work and related activities. This is relevant to the design of initial training for generalist planners; but above all there is a case for focused continuing professional development for planners learning conservation on the job.
The Assembly should review the allocation of central government funds for conservation activities; consider how far there should be greater involvement for local authorities in determining the deployment of such resources; and examine how far such central funding can be allocated to area-based strategies rather than single site projects. It should consider whether there are also means to identify additional income streams to meet the short fall in resource within local authorities in relation to individual buildings as well as the public realm.
Investment 5. The preservation and enhancement of conservation areas is randomly resourced, and LPAs experience considerable constraint in resourcing and
10.
There is potential for the Assembly to evolve as a champion for the built environment in Wales, with support for environmental education and promotion of the built heritage as key components of vibrant and sustainable future communities.
40
41
Calman
Figure 7 Medieval street pattern leading to Cardiff Castle
42
CAERPHILLY RECENT REGENERATION IN AN HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Caerphilly: Town centre scheme, winner of the 1999 Civic Trust Centre Vision award
In the later 1990s, regeneration programmes still had economic objectives, as in the case of Caerphilly. But projects now tended to emphasise sustainability by providing an all-weather environment or easy parking facilities to attract shoppers and visitors for longer periods in all seasons. In design terms quality has assumed greater importance not only in terms of conducting urban design appraisal studies but also by specifying quality materials and providing good architectural detailing. As we see here, the mixing of the high-tech details of the new shopping centre with the medieval castle structure is not only harmonious but undeniably attractive.
Appendix 1: Tabular Data

A selection of relevant tables from the data analysis
Cadw Frequently 14 authorities Occasionally 8 authorities Never Not Answered 1 authority Local Conservation Area Advisory Committees 3 authorities 6 authorities 13 authorities 1 authority Other Teams in Your Authority 14 authorities 7 authorities 1 authority 1 authority
Table 6: Liaison Respondents were asked how often they liased with each group
Authority Blaenau Gwent Brecon Beacons NP Bridgend Caerphilly Cardiff Caredigion Carmarthenshire Conwy County Borough Council Denbighshire County Council Flintshire County Council Gwynedd Council Isle of Anglesey County Council Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire County Council Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council Newport County Borough Council Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Pembrokeshire County Council Powys County Council Rhondda Cynon Taff Snowdonia National Park Swansea Torfaen County Borough Council Vale of Glamorgan Wrexham County Borough Council Total
No. of Newly Designated Conservation Areas 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 7 0 2 13 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 31
Table 7: Recent designations Designations since 1 April 1996
43
Authority Blaenau Gwent Borough Council Bridgend Caerphilly Cardiff Caredigion Conwy County Borough Council Denbighshire County Council Flintshire County Council Gwynedd Council Isle of Anglesey County Council Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire County Council Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council Newport County Borough Council Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Pembrokeshire County Council Powys County Council Rhondda Cynon Taff Snowdonia National Park Swansea Torfaen County Borough Council Vale of Glamorgan Wrexham County Borough Council Totals
Conservation areas appraised 0 2 3 1 1 3 34 14 0 4 0 1 6 4 0 4 1 2 0 2 0 7 6 95
Table 8: Recent appraisals Appraisals since 1 April 1996
44
Authority Blaenau Gwent Borough Council Bridgend Cardiff Caerphilly Ceredigion Conwy County Borough Council Denbighshire County Council Flintshire County Council Gwynedd Council Isle of Anglesey County Council Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire County Council Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council Newport County Borough Council
Timetable for Reviews When funding / time is available When funding/time is available When funding / time is available When funding/time is available When necessary When necessary In conjunction with UDP preparation In conjunction with UDP preparation and when funding / time is available On a rolling programme In conjunction with UDP preparation and when funding / time is available When funding / time is available When funding / time is available In conjunction with UDP preparation In conjunction with UDP preparation and when funding / time is available and on a rolling programme and when necessary In conjunction with UDP preparation and when necessary On a rolling programme When funding / time is available When necessary and when funding and time is available When funding / time is available and on a rolling programme and when necessary When funding / time is available When necessary In conjunction with UDP preparation and when funding / time is available and on a rolling programme When funding / time is available and on a rolling programme and when necessary
Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Pembrokeshire County Council Powys County Council Rhondda Cynon Taff Swansea Snowdonia National Perk Torfaen County Borough Council Vale of Glamorgan
Wrexham County Borough Council
Table 9: The timing of reviews Respondents were asked when they undertook conservation area reviews
45
Authority
Character Appraisals
Blaenau Gwent Borough Council Occasionally Bridgend Frequently Caerphilly Frequently Cardiff Frequently Caredigion Occasionally Conwy County Borough Council Frequently Denbighshire County Council Frequently Flintshire County Council Frequently Gwynedd Council Frequently Isle of Anglesey County Council Frequently Merthyr Tydfil Occasionally Monmouthshire County Council Occasionally Neath & Port Talbot County Occasionally Borough Council Newport County Borough Council Frequently Pembrokeshire Coast National Never Park Pembrokeshire County Council Frequently Powys County Council Frequently Rhondda Cynon Taff Occasionally Snowdonia National Perk Frequently Swansea Occasionally Torfaen County Borough Council Frequently Vale of Glamorgan Frequently Wrexham County Borough CouncilFrequently
ID of landmark features / vistas Occasionally Frequently Frequently Frequently Occasionally Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Never Frequently Never Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Frequently Frequently Frequently
Review of listing Occasionally Occasionally Never Never Never Never Never Never Never Never Occasionally Data Missing Occasionally Frequently Never Frequently Frequently Occasionally Never Never Never Occasionally Never
Table 10: Content of appraisals (by authority)
46
Frequently Door / window replacement Exterior colour schemes Removal / replacement of roofs or chimneys Signage 7 5 7 2
Occasionally 0 1
Never 10 10 10
Missing 6 7 6 8
Total 23 23 23 23
10
Table 11: Coverage of article four directions

Authority Door/ window replacement Exterior colour schemes Never Never Frequently Frequently Never Occasionally Never Missing Never Frequently Never Missing Never Missing Missing Missing Frequently Never Missing Never Never Never Frequently Removal / Signage replacement of roofs or chimneys Never Never Never Frequently Frequently Never Never Never Missing Never Frequently Never Missing Never Missing Missing Missing Frequently Never Frequently Never Never Frequently Frequently Never Occasionally Missing Never Never Never Missing Never Frequently Never Missing Never Missing Missing Missing Frequently Never Missing Occasionally Never Never Occasionally
Blaenau Gwent Borough Never Council Bridgend Never Caerphilly Cardiff Ceredigion Frequently Frequently Never
Conwy County Borough Never Council Denbighshire County Never Council Flintshire County Council Missing Gwynedd Council Isle of Anglesey County Council Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire County Council Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council Newport County Borough Council Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Pembrokeshire County Council Powys County Council Rhondda Cynon Taff Never Frequently Never Missing Never Missing Missing Missing Frequently Never
Snowdonia National Park Frequently Swansea Never
Torfaen County Borough Never Council Vale of Glamorgan Frequently Wrexham County Borough Council Frequently
Table 12: Coverage of Article four directions (by authority)
47

yes 22 13 12 8 no 0 8 7 13 n.a. 0 1 0 0 Missing 1 1 3 2 Total 23 23 23 23
Statutory Local Plan U.D.P. Supplementary Planning Guidance Conservation Area Strategy report
Table 13: Location of policies Respondents were asked the location of their conservation area policies
Blaenau Gwent Borough Council Bridgend Caerphilly Cardiff Ceredigion Conwy County Borough Council Denbighshire County Council Flintshire County Council Gwynedd Council Isle of Anglesey County Council Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire County Council Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council Newport County Borough Council Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Pembrokeshire County Council Powys County Council RCT Snowdonia National Park Swansea Torfaen County Borough Council Vale of Glamorgan Wrexham County Borough Council
Statutory Local Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Missing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
U.D.P. Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes n.a. Yes No No No No Missing Yes No Yes No
Supplementary Planning Guidance No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Missing No No No Missing Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Missing Yes Yes Yes Yes
Strategy Report No NO No Yes No Yes Yes Missing No Yes No Missing No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No
Table 14: Location of conservation area policies (by authority) Respondents were asked the location of their conservation area policies
Frequently 3 9 3 3 5 5 Occasionally 9 10 4 9 12 11 Never 8 1 11 7 1 3 Yes 0 2 0 0 2 2 Missing 3 1 5 4 3 2 Total 23 23 23 23 23 23
Area Briefs Planning / Development Briefs Site Development Briefs Urban Design Studies C.A. Character Studies Permeability / Legibility Studies
Table 15: Briefs and studies Respondents were asked about the frequency of use of Supplementary Planning Guidance
48
Authority Blaenau Gwent Borough Council Bridgend Caerphilly Cardiff Ceredigion Conwy County Borough Council Denbighshire County Council Flintshire County Council Gwynedd Council Isle of Anglesey County Council Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire County Council Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council Newport County Borough Council Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Pembrokeshire County Council Powys County Council Rhondda Cynon Taff Snowdonia National Park Swansea Torfaen County Borough Council Vale of Glamorgan Wrexham County Borough Council
Area Briefs Never Never Occasionally Frequently Missing Never Occasionally Never Occasionally Occasionally No Missing Missing Never Occasionally Frequently Never Occasionally Never Occasionall Occasionally Occasionally Frequently
Planning / Development Briefs Never Frequently Occasionally Frequently Missing Occasionally Frequently Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Yes Occasionally Missing Frequently Occasionally Frequently Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Missing Frequently
Site Development Briefs Never Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Missing Never Never Missing Never Occasionally No Missing Missing Never Never Never Never Occasionally Missing Frequently Never Missing Frequently
Urban Design Studies C.A. Character Studies Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Frequently Missing Never Occasionally Occasionally Never Occasionally No Missing Missing Missing Occasionally Frequently Never Never Occasionally Occasionally Never Missing Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Frequently Yes Never Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Yes Frequently Missing Missing Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Missing Occasionally Occasionally Missing Occasionally
Permeability / Legibility Studies Occasionally Never Never Frequently Yes Frequently Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Yes Frequently Missing Missing Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Never Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Missing Occasionally
Table 16: Briefs and studies (by authority) Authorities were asked to specify the frequency with which they used specialist briefs and studies
49
Authority Blaenau Gwent Borough Council Bridgend Caerphilly Cardiff Ceredigion Conwy County Borough Council Denbighshire County Council Flintshire County Council Gwynedd Council Isle of Anglesey County Council Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire County Council Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council Newport County Borough Council Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Pembrokeshire County Council Powys County Council Rhondda Cynon Taff Snowdonia National Park Swansea Torfaen County Borough Council Vale of Glamorgan Wrexham County Borough Council
a Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Missing Yes Yes Missing Missing No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No
b Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Missing Yes No Missing Missing Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
c Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Missing Yes No Missing Missing Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No
d No No Yes Yes No No No No Missing Yes No Missing Missing Yes No Yes No No No No No No No
e Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Missing Yes No Missing Missing Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
f No No Yes Yes No No No No Missing Yes No Missing Missing No No Yes No No No No No No No
g Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Missing Yes No Missing Missing Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No No
h Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Missing No No Missing Missing No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes c= roofs/chimneys g=exterior treatment
i No No No Yes No No No No Missing No No Missing Missing No No No No No No Yes No No No
j No No No No No No No No Missing No No Missing Missing No No No No No No No No No No
k No No No Yes No No Yes No Missing No No Missing Missing No No No No No No No No No Yes
50
a= built form/massing
b= shop fronts f=forecourt treatment j=traffic/directional signage
d=gutters/down pipes h=outdoor advertising
Table 17: Guidance issued by authorities
e=doors/windows i=public art
k=availability of skilled craftspersons
Authority
Departmental funding Figures in k
Central Government funding Figures in k 0 0 60 150 105 0 90 20 Missing 250 0 0 Missing 90 250 500 78 500 0 0 Missing 0 Missing
Private Sector Funding Figures in k 0 0 43 300 210 0 180 120 Missing 1,000 0 0 Missing 0 250 300 183 500 0 13.1M Missing Missing Missing
Funding from Other Sources Figures in k 0 0 0 0 0 1,613 400 650 Missing 150 0 0 Missing 1,400
Table 18: Funding conservation areas 1996-9
Blaenau Gwent Borough Council Bridgend1 Caerphilly Cardiff Ceredigion Conwy County Borough Council Denbighshire County Council Flintshire County Council Gwynedd Council Isle of Anglesey County Council Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire County Council Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council Newport County Borough Council Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Pembrokeshire County Council Powys County Council Rhondda Cynon Taff Snowdonia National Park Swansea Torfaen County Borough Council Vale of Glamorgan
0 0 50 0 105 660 90 30 Missing 100 0 0 Missing 120 120 0 105 500 0 0 7.5 0 Missing
0 0 5.5 0 0 3M Missing Missing Missing
51
Wrexham County Borough Council

1
Ignores town centre pedestrianisation at cost of 1M
Appendix 2:
Summary of comments made at Conservation Areas Seminar, September 1999
Peter Cope questioned how far the information gathered on spending patterns represented a true picture, pointing out that different budgets would include spending (in rather than on) conservation areas, beyond specific allocations or grants. Jason Evans questioned whether the money spent in conservation areas (for example by a Highways Department) was always valuable in conservation terms. There need to be mechanisms to ensure that expenditure is purposeful, Nick Lloyd stated that it was important to identify funding specifically dedicated to management and enhancement programmes rather than funds from other sources. He pointed out that the Vale of Glamorgan has, post local government reorganisation, reduced resources for conservation areas owing to the pressure of other budgets; the nil figure cited in the Vales return was accurate. Sandra Williams The definition of specific funding depends on how you define conservation in Cardiff there is no longer a specific conservation areas budget and resources are sought from other strategies that will bring benefits. The issue is whether we can make positive use of the funds that are drawn down when work in a conservation area is part of a wider project within urban design. Half of my work is urban design policy work. We therefore need to see enhancement as part of a bigger picture. Several comments to the effect that money was not always well spent in conservation areas and that spending by Highways departments could be a particularly good example of this issue. Jason Evans suggested that it was therefore all the more important that there were coherent links within organisations to ensure effective working with other project teams. Nick Lloyd questioned how far the skills available within a local authority were being used together; diversity of skills and experiences can create tension within management structures, and take things away from a conservation programme. Sam Romaya reflected that within this context it was important to find ways of measuring input against achievement., and to consider how management structures could contribute to effectiveness. Should a conservation area team be part of a built environment group combining urban design and conservation skills? It was commented that it was just as important, potentially, to link conservation, economic development and town planning skills, and that that corporate working was often hindered by the fragmentation of technical services into separate departments. Phil Roach pointed out that such corporate links could not be achieved in a National Park context since these specialisms were not present in the Park authorities. He also reflected that while activity was relatively easy to measure, (quality of) output was less tangible. Nick Lloyd rejoined that this was an issue that highlighted the need for effective national guidance in
53
order to ensure a uniform approach to quality and design issues. To achieve this it was currently more helpful to make use of English Heritage guidance in the absence of specific guidance from Cadw. He thought that the focus of Cadws role on historic buildings and archaeology meant that their concerns were primarily for individual buildings rather than on spaces or area regeneration. A fundamental issue in Wales was the need for an overview that combined better Welsh guidance and enabled more appropriate allocation of resources. There was no clear picture of how Cadw prioritised resources and he had experienced frustration in achieving funding for projects. Different criteria might need to be applied in selecting buildings or groups of buildings for treatment, and there was a need for a balanced allocation of resources. Sam Romaya stated his view that conservation and urban design needed to balance each other in order to create an environment as a whole rather than to focus on a specific aspect of the environment. Would there be professional differences of view regarding this as an objective? Were area studies of the kind undertaken in Birmingham by Tibbalds a way forward? Could one envisage categories of conservation areas each having guidelines for good practice? If so would it be right that these should not be based on a grading system but on a typology (for example, rural, suburban, urban etc.)? Can guidelines be developed that would be helpful from this point of view? Philip Roach agreed that there was a need for national good practice to be identified. It was not apparent that Cadw perceived this as its proper role. He noted also that Cadw grant aid targets outstanding secular and ecclesiastical buildings. Town Scheme grant prioritises individual buildings rather than the quality of a conservation area. The loss of Conservation Area Grant that has been signaled during the recent conservation exercise on grants to historic buildings is disturbing, and will be harmful to the general public seeking resources to assist the maintenance of their properties. Are there specific issues relating to the definition of Cadws role which inhibit the promulgation of guidelines? Would Cadw argue that the gap that was being identified in the course of this discussion was met by Townscape Heritage Initiative grant? Nick Lloyd The present discussion was valuable and was one that was not readily possible in the context of the Built Heritage Forum. There is a need for an overview of built heritage and environmental issues, and conservation area management and enhancement was a key aspect of this need. Should the issue be addressed by the National Assembly in order to assist in the definition of Cadws role? Peter Cope considered that from the view of the WO/NAW conservation and urban design were local not central government issues. Was the best way forward for local authorities to work together to build up advice and good practice or should this be a matter for the Assembly? Several speakers noted their preference for national guidance and policy tools. Sam Romaya felt that the easy way to deal with article 4 directions was for these to be entirely a local matter. Phil Roach suggested that there should be a national vision for the built heritage; and that public concern and understanding could not do the job without the tools. Sadly there was no champion in Wales for the historic built environment, or a governmental voice that promoted awareness as part of sustainability. Sandra Williams noted that the Urban Task Force had reflected on the need for environmental awareness and the importance of Built Environment Education in the curriculum. The Urban Design alliance was very much English-based. There was agreement about the importance of BEE in schools; and that the lack of public appreciation of the built historic environment was a cultural issue for Wales. Buildings were considered to be very low down on any list of factors identified as part of a Welsh Heritage. Lindsay Cuddy returned the discussion to the issue of defining evaluation criteria. Sam Romaya responded that there needed to be a means of measuring whether a job had been well done, but traditional means of doing this were not adequate, and current practice could be considered to be too subjective. Should we depart from scientific definitions of special architectural and
historic importance? does a concern for aesthetic quality downgrade the legal requirements? How far should we move beyond empiricism? Should appraisal and evaluation criteria be part of primary legislation? If so, how can this be related to the practical objective of getting cash? Phil Roach recognised diversity within the Welsh historic environment but suggested that there were rhythms that bound the nation together on which national accord could be possible. A simple exemplar would be treatment of overhead cabling. Matthew Griffiths highlighted the potential value of feedback from this seminar and from the study; issues were being raised that we should find a means to discuss and promote at a national level. Peter Cope returned to structures within local authorities. He noted that Planning Departments were tending to be absorbed within larger structures sometimes with a fragmentation of traditional planning functions to different corporate centres. The issue of how conservation and urban design can be managed within corporate structures was important? What impact was internal reorganisation likely to have on local authorities? Jason Evans commented that part of the problem was the higher awareness within English councils of the need to allocate staffing and cash resources for the care of the historic environment. This might be a good time to go to the Assembly. Conservation Areas were at the heart of our communities, and they deserved a place in the national regeneration context. There was a danger of the conservation function being isolated, and, once again, a need to get away from the mentality that conservation was achieved through concentration on the individual building.
54
55
Select Bibliography
All English Law Reports (1997) Shimizu (UK) Limited v Westminster Council (All E R 481) Cadw (1997) The Listing of Buildings in Wales: Historic Buildings Grants and Conservation Area Grants (Cadw, Cardiff) Cantacuzino, Sherban (1996), Urban design in context, in Built Environment, 22 (4), 258-262 Civic Trust for Wales (1991), Conservation Areas (Civic Trust for Wales, Cardiff) Cohen, Nahoum (1999), Urban Conservation (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.) English Heritage (1997) Conservation Area Practice: Guidance on the Management of Conservation Areas (English Heritage, London) English Heritage (1997) Conservation Area Appraisals (English Heritage, London) English Historic Towns Forum (1992), Townscape in Trouble: Conservation Areas a Case for Change (Butterworth, London) Larkham, Peter (1996), Conservation and the City (Routledge, London and New York) Morris, Eleanor Smith (1997), British Town Planning and Urban Design (Longman, Harlow) Parfect, Michael and Power, Gordon (1997) Planning for Urban Quality (Routledge, London and New York) Punter, John and Carmona, Matthew (1997) The Design Dimension of Planning (Spon, London) Richards, Jonathan (1994) Faadism (Routledge, London) Rogers, Richard (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance (HMSO, Norwich) Royal Town Planning Institute (1994) The Character of Conservation Areas (RTPI, London) Welsh Office (1996) Circular 61/96: Planning and the Historic Environment Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas (HMSO, Cardiff) Welsh Office (1999) Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy First Revision (HMSO, Cardiff)
56
57
Conservation Areas in Wales management and urban design
This report is based on an extensive survey of Welsh planning authorities. With a foreword by Sue Essex, National Assembly Secretary for the Environment it considers issues of best practice and resources, and makes the case for close linkages between conservation and urban design. Amongst the recommendations is the call for the Assembly to become a champion for the built environment in Wales.
The Civic Trust for Wales Cardiff University Department of City and Regional Planning October 2000
Cover sketch by Bill Davies

Conservation Areas in Wales: Management and Urban Design

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Conservation Areas in Wales: Management and Urban Design

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

management and urban design

Conservation Areas in Wales

Matthew Griffiths and Sam Romaya

Conservation Areas in Wales

Cardiff: the Pierhead (Cardiff Bay Development Corporation)

Conservation Areas in Wales Management and Urban Design

Matthew Griffiths and Sam Romaya

Conservation areas in Wales: management and design

Appendix 1: Tabular Data Appendix 2: Seminar Summary Select Bibliography Questionnaire

Assembly Secretary for the Environment August 2000

act itself, which states shall.

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

and the City (1996), 200.

2.1 Quantitative and qualitative data

Conservation areas in Wales

Carmarthenshire County Council and Brecon Beacons National Park

3.1 The 1990 study

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

3.2 Designation and appraisal

Table 2: Conservation area designations by decade

Table 1 Conservation areas by local planning authority, October 1999

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Table 3: Expertise available to local planning authorities

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Table 4: Outcomes of conservation area reviews

Table 5: Outcomes of conservation area reviews

3.6 Conservation area reviews: content and outcomes

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

3.8 Implementation and guidance

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

3.11 Crisis - what crisis?

Conservation areas in Wales

4 Looking to the future

4.1 Summary of recent developments

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

4.2 Conservation areas and urban design

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Fig 3 Haverfordwest An enhanced historic central area, but is it sustainable?

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

4.3 Training and specialisation

4.4 Public involvement in conservation

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales

Conservation areas in Wales