Joining up Agendas Key Issues for CGTs Verena McCaig Historic Landscape Project Officer South East Region [THIS PRESENTATION WAS CONCEIVED AND WRITTEN FOR SUSSEX GT COMMITTEE MEETING 141111 BUT THE ISSUES CONSIDERED APPLY MORE GENERALLY TO CGTs] Hope I can outline some of the current issues and opportunities – because of the project I’m working on these are focused around research and conservation issues rather than schools and education but hopefully there can be links made Might be useful just to say from where this project evolved: Project is to support CGTs to play a greater role in conservation initiatives – to really ensure that they are supported to develop their potential – and to assist in protecting more landscapes, particularly parkland, in the south east I took up post 18 months ago and needless to say things have changed rapidly during that time Project has been developing in response to CGTs info and feedback and partner agencies I’ll start at the broadest levels that the project is considering and hone down to what this could mean for CGTs and where I see we can make most difference [2005 Heritage Counts EH report highlighted Nearly 50% parkland lost since 1918 - more than any other region - area larger than the IoW AGT formed partnership with EH and NE - Target expertise and funding towards conservation of designed parkland landscapes in SE region]

State of Conservation National Policy Issues Historic Environment Records – Heritage Assets Localism / National Planning Policy Framework Development and PPS5 – site significance Local Listing Heritage at Risk Funding Spending Review – impact on LAs/EH/NE Heritage Lottery Fund Higher Level Stewardship Other Closer working partnership – AGT, GHS, The Garden Museum, Parks & Gardens UK HERs expanding from just having Listed Buildings and scheduled monuments – increasing numbers of landscapes Changing planning framework – still evolving PPS5 – Planning Policy Statement 5 – requirement for developers to consider the significance of a site Funding – not just impact on LAs but on EH and NE too HLF and HLS – both opportunities to get funding into designed landscapes

Stakeholder Priorities – EH & NE Supporting the involvement of the voluntary sector in protecting heritage – especially Grade II Registered and locally important landscapes Harnessing local knowledge Greater access to knowledgeable and skilled individuals for advice on historic environment Raising awareness and information exchange on ‘At Risk’ assets Building up information for Historic Environment Records (HERs) Improved targeting of Environmental Stewardship funding to protect the historic environment Have highlighted the key priorities of project stakeholders – also LAs benefit As the funding pot gets smaller and cuts and redundancies take effect, need to work with vol sector becomes greater if protection is to be maintained The project recognises the links between the agenda of the CGTs and the key statutory bodies supporting our heritage protection

Emerging Issues for CGTs Pro-actively engaging with the conservation agenda Focus – for research, for conservation Recruiting and retaining ACTIVE volunteers Training Geographic spread Profile, particularly with statutory agencies Communication with LPAs and GHS CGTs – a key and fundamental aim is to conserve our designed landscapes? Through education, research and vigilance Onus falls on the few for the many… Geographic spread – issue can be travel time and expenses I shall try to draw together some possible responses to issues

Bringing the strands together At Risk agenda – support with research, for owners etc Local listing – researching sites to ensure they are on the local list / understood Research put on the HER and P&GUK Contributing to NE Higher Level Stewardship information Getting involved in Conservation Management Plans Responding to planning applications These are the areas in which there is useful overlap in our agendas

EH At Risk Agenda Vulnerability Management Trajectory Condition At Risk Register – landscapes plus SMs, LBs, and CAs Reasons for being At Risk Condition: Development or neglect Vulnerability: Multiple ownership Development threat Management: for example obscuring views…. Inappropriate planting…ignorance Trajectory: in decline / uncertain / positive If they’re on the Register, we want to take them off Ways in which we can work with EH E Sussex: Stanmer Park Kidbrooke Park Bayham Abbey W Sussex: Lavington Park Watching brief on these currently

Local Listing Encourages local people to identify important local Heritage Assets which warrant greater protection Gives LPA better understanding of Heritage Asset through research and recording No additional consent requirements BUT Conservation and contribution to the local area will be a MATERIAL CONSIDERATION Feeds into local planning processes – clarifies constraints and opportunities of the landscapes EH draft guidance now out: Material consideration WHEN PLANNING DECISIONS ARE MADE AFFECTING Heritage Asset OR ITS SETTING Only 55% of LPAs in the south east have Local Lists – I believe that Chichester, Horsham have LL certainly of buildings – worth going through checking out which others do Local Listing criteria encouraging consistency New guidance form EH coming out at the end of the year - should see greater emphasis on this and more LPAs looking to develop their lists – had an approach from Crawley already

Higher Level Stewardship Targeted land management incentive scheme Objectives include protecting the historic environment Funding for: Conservation Management Plans and Tree Surveys Reverting fields from crops to grazing or mowing Tree planting and protection Dredging ponds and lakes Opening up lost views Funding feature restoration e.g. follies, traditional farm buildings NE scheme To give a few examples of what it might fund over 10 years List here can apply to any landscape in HLS, not just Registered and not just At Risk Can address issues of management across divided ownership if can bring owners together Alters appearance aesthetic design integrity Protection from animals, machines Aesthetic and wildlife Can look beyond boundaries to protect surrounding landscape Buildings integral part of scene As the approach to heritage becomes more holistic – looks at historic assets overall – designed landscapes epitomise this: listed buildings, registered landscapes, scheduled monuments and earthworks: but not just Registered

Research for Conservation Ensuring sites are mapped / noted: vistas, sight lines, approaches, features If the site is on the HER it is more likely to be picked up properly Local listing - awareness of criteria P&G UK - gives NE officers and others ready access to solid information and links Knowing the HLS ‘pipeline’ Helping owners research their estates Site visits, contributions and comments on management plans One step ahead! Target development lands and settings / At Risk Mapping sites – makes sure that NE doesn’t miss it… By NE officers – will be more than one line on an HER… Local listing P&G UK – can give indicative info and flag up features- can help in the initial analysis of whether it’s an important HE site prior to HER Knowing what’s in the pipeline and being ready to flag up issues in the best interests of the site If management plans are commissioned, CGTs can contribute and comment Helping owners research e.g. Holmbush – enthusiasm can influence owners! Offers new perspectives, can pick up on odd features Can be proactive in thinking about the settings of landscape, boundaries Key tools that rely on research: At Risk – being aware as you visit, hear about planning, notice changes in ownership; establishing contact and helping with information Local Listing – indicating significance of the site HER – starting point for so many issues HLS – research flags up what features need to be considered for conservation or restoration Conservation Management Plans – being part of consultation to make sure things aren’t missed; picking up small pieces of research to enhance a plan

How does this benefit CGTs? Opportunity for focused research Research acknowledged Applied Making a practical difference Permanent record publicly accessible Gives a lever for recruitment – recruiting with an end goal Volunteers gaining and honing personal skills whilst making a contribution of lasting and practical benefit Higher profile for the CGT Closer working with LPAs and SDNP – more likely to trigger information re planning applications more likely to be involved in county initiatives, attract new members, be approached for advice etc Focused research doesn’t mean that vols can’t or don’t research sites that interest them – but can be applied for different things eg published article, reworked, can go on HER, P&G UK database – used for planning, HLS etc

Going Forward Develop focused projects for recruiting active volunteers - start small Consider HLF smaller grants – Your Heritage Encourage members to take up training offered + use HLP web resources Ensure sustainability - train and mentor new volunteers for addressing planning issues Continue to develop external relationships, particularly with HERs, LPAs, SDNP, EH and NE – and with other CGTs Develop focused research to support Local listing + Natural England HLS SGT Conservation Sub-committee Maintain awareness of EH At Risk sites Reflect research and conservation work and opportunities in newsletters These are just a few suggestions – try through the project to offer ideas Share out planning – less onerous if others are picking up smaller sites Break this down into manageable chunks – Brian is extremely skilled Support from GHS too Focused research – for example: