1. COUNTY GARDENS TRUSTS EAST OF ENGLAND REGIONAL FORUM PLANNING - PROBLEMS & CURRENT SITUATION WHAT LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANNING OFFICERS WANT FROM YOU Margie Hoffnung, Assistant Conservation Officer The Garden History Society 28 th October 2014

2. WEEKLY CASEWORK LOG Unique database which records all planning consultations received by GHS for over a decade and the responses made

3. WEEKLY CASEWORK LOG Look at each entry individually on appropriate Local Authority website Forward them to local CGT if appropriate for further comment/action All entries are assigned categories This data is used by EH for its Heritage Counts Assessments

4. PROBLEMS 33% Drop in conservation staff in Local Authorities since 2006 Remaining staff time poor Staff lack in-depth conservation knowledge Staff often unaware of GHS as statutory consultee Rapid staff change over means that carefully nurtured relationships with LAs often short lived

5. FINDINGS OF VICTORIA THOMPSON’S QUESTIONNAIRE POSITIVES Increased awareness of existence of historic parks and gardens Most LAs consult their HERs when responding to applications 94% of responding LAs claimed to have adopted or have emerging development plan policy which could be used for the general conservation of historic parks and gardens 70% of responding LAs require submission of Statement of Significance (SOS) before relevant applications can be validated Survey indicated that many would welcome further support in the development of their understanding of historic parks & gardens (HP&G) and guidance of the assessment of significance Increased profile of County Garden Trusts Increased local and national designation

6. FINDINGS OF VICTORIA THOMPSON’S QUESTIONNAIRE NEGATIVES 32% of LAs were unable to correctly quantify the number of registered parks & gardens in their area (with the general tendency being to underestimate) Role of statutory consultees poorly understood 82% of LAs did not have specific guidance on HP&G set out in their Supplementary Planning Documents 25% of LAs have no officer with specific responsibility for HP&G and only 2% have a dedicated officer for this In-house shortfall of expertise is not necessarily addressed by access to external specialist advice (75% had no such access, rising to 82% for those LAs without any staff with specific HP&G responsibility) 57% of LAs who required SOSs did not then check the adequacy of statements before validating the application Significance poorly understood Parks & Gardens perceived as low profile assets

7. WHAT CAN WE DO ? Talk to your local planning officers They are desperate for the knowledge and experience you possess and can help them with CGTs are a vast source of research on a vast number of things. Talk to each other : http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group.leapthehaha/join Or send an email to : leapthehaha- subscribe@yahoogroups.com

8. COMMUNICATE

9. WHAT A LOCAL PLANNING OFFICER WANTS FROM US When looking at solar farms there are many receptors to consider. These receptors can include people or places; they could be visitors to a park and garden, someone walking a national trail, or someone living near the application site. What is useful is detailed information regarding the affected receptor – does it affect many historic buildings and places? How significant the impact of the proposed development would be on these buildings/places, and if so, how adverse? If it is slight, then we can focus on proposed landscaping and other mitigation If it is moderate or significant, then we need to be more rigorous in our assessment to see if the development would affect just one or many receptors. Photographs from significant view points are very helpful. In an historic setting as well as views in and out of the AONB, a view is a material planning consideration. It is this kind of detailed information we need as officers aren’t always as familiar with listed buildings and sites as we perhaps should be. This is when we need to rely on you to draw our attention to specific matters.

10. WHAT OTHER TOOLS HAVE CGTs GOT TO HELP THEM? Revised template letters available soon. They will follow EH’s SSIPP model : Summary Significance Impact Policy Position Existing PCANS to be updated. New Solar one will be added. Other topics which may be included are : wind/quarrying/equestrian/mountain biking/travellers Make sure that the application affects a Registered landscape because if it does not, and only impacts upon views from and in the wider countryside, a CGT should persuade the CPRE and other interested groups to do so instead. They could of course support the objection if they wished

11. WHAT OTHER TOOLS HAVE CGTs GOT TO HELP THEM? Concise summary of response at beginning of letter in case officers too time poor to read the rest Extent of harm must be made abundantly clear – (ie. Not just neutral ‘affected’) Say things like : Very seriously affected or exceptionally affected. Relevant policies from NPPF & Local Plan Any Government advice (ie Photovoltaic Strategies, Part 1 & Part 2) Any relevant Appeal Judgements or Ministerial statements

12. THE FUTURE Transition phase during GHS/AGT merger Committee very like current JCC will be formed which needs clear vision of what must be done and by whom EH re-prioritising their casework to target advice where most needed, maximising use of their limited staff time Raises potential for duplication and gaps LPAs lack of knowledge/experience may cause things to be missed

13. CGTs are WONDERFUL We couldn’t manage without you It’s HUGELY APPRECIATED THANK YOU for all you do