Report to Cabinet
18th February 2014
Subject:
Proposed Conservation Area Review
Status:
Routine Matter for Decision
Report Ref:
Ward(s):
All
Key Decision:
Yes
Key Decision Ref:
859/PL
Report of:
Mike Townsend, Planning and Development Manager – email:
mike.townsend@basingstoke.gov.uk
Contact:
Appendices:
Tel: 01256 845 307
Rachel White – email: rachel.white@basingstoke.gov.uk Tel:
01256 845287
Jamie Preston – email:
jamie.preston@basingstoke.gov.uk Tel: 01256 845512
Appendix 1 – Proposed Prioritisation Methodology
Appendix 2 – Proposed Prioritisation List
Appendix 3 – Consultation and Adoption Methodology for
future review
Appendix 4 - Public Consultation and Adoption Methodology
Appendix 5 – Top 5 Priority Conservation Areas
Papers relied on to
produce this report
SUMMARY
1.
This Report
1.1
This report identifies the need to review the Borough’s Conservation Area
Apraisals and proposes a model for undertaking this work.
2.
Recommendation
2.1 It is recommended that:
Cabinet:
i.
Considers the comments made by the Planning and Infrastructure Overview
and Scrutiny Committee in respect of the proposed Conservation Area Review,
prioritisation methodology and priority list, and approach to consultation and
adoption;
ii.
Approves the proposed review of conservation area appraisals and
development of management plans as necessary;
iii.
Approves the prioritisation methodology (Appendix 1) and the conclusions of
the desk top review as set out in the prioritisation list (Appendix 2);
iv.
Approves the approach to consultation and adoption (Appendix 3) for taking
forward a programme of Conservation Area Review.
1 of 7
the
CONTRIBUTION TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES
This report accords with the council’s Budget and Policy Framework and directly
supports the Council Plan priorities of

Planning policies that safeguard local distinctiveness.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Term
Definition
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
3.0
Background Information
3.1
Local authorities have a statutory duty under Section 69 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to: “(from time to time)
determine which parts of their area are areas of special architectural or
historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to
preserve or enhance, and designate those areas as conservation areas”.
Section 71 of the Act imposes a duty on Local Authorities from time to time to:
“formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of
any parts of their area which are conservation areas.”
3.2
Local authorities have traditionally sought to comply with this requirement by
conducting an appraisal of each conservation area. Recent English Heritage
guidance (Understanding Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal
Management, 2011) highlights that appraisals analyse what is positive and
negative about an area and identifies opportunities for beneficial change or
the need for additional protection or restraint. The guidance points out that
this type of analysis can help local authorities to develop management plans.
3.3
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires
local authorities to carry out reviews ‘from time to time’ but there is no
indication in law how often this might mean. English Heritage guidance
(2011) states that it is generally agreed to be best practice to undertake
conservation area reviews every 5 years. The purpose of the review is to
ascertain how the conservation area has changed and to confirm or redefine
the special interest that warrants designation. Simply updating the appraisal to
record new development will not provide any analysis regarding special
architectural and historic interest and the impacts of new development on the
character and appearance on the Conservation Area. As each of the
Borough’s Conservation Area Appraisals was carried out prior to 2004 they
are in need of review.
3.4
A management plan sets out the way in which development pressure and
neglect will be managed to ensure conservation areas retain the qualities
2 of 7
which led to their original designation. Conservation area management plans
are based on the findings of the appraisal process and recommend a series of
measures to protect and enhance the significance of the conservation area.
This can include a review of available grants and recommendations for
buildings at risk, boundary revisions and proposals for enhancement. A
consideration of the potential for serving Article 4 directions to restrict
permitted development rights for works that could threaten the character of an
area can be made. There are currently 47 Conservation Areas within the
Borough. Each of these has an appraisal but none have a management plan.
3.5
4.0
The creation of effective Conservation Area Management Plans will fulfil the
general duty placed on local authorities to formulate and publish proposals for
the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas in their area
(Section 71 of the 1990 Act). They are an essential tool for the analysis of the
issues set out in the appraisals and for developing a strategy for the
implementation of short, medium and long term management proposals.
Project approach
4.1
The Prioritisation Methodology has been developed to identify those
conservation areas that are at greatest risk from development and have
suffered from the greatest level of change, and therefore, potentially, harm to
their character and appearance. The methodology has also been designed to
identify the level of inaccuracy evident in the existing conservation area
appraisals through analysis of boundaries, notable buildings, important trees,
spaces and character areas. Where a conservation area receives a high score
it signals a more urgent need for review.
4.2
Due to the number of conservation areas and the level of resource available, a
desk based assessment of the existing appraisals was undertaken as the most
efficient way of assessing change/risk. The desk based assessment approach
has its limitations as set out in Appendix 1.
4.3
The results of the desk based assessment have formed the basis of the
proposed priority list (Appendix 2). This list demonstrates three clear groups
(low, medium and high priority) with Basingstoke Town, Whitchurch and Old
Basing scoring the highest number of points. The highest scoring group of nine
conservation areas include the larger villages and towns that are under the
greatest pressure from development as well as being of greater complexity and
therefore at a higher level of risk from potential errors in the existing appraisals.
These areas are therefore also most likely to benefit from a management plan.
5.0 Prioritisation methodology and list
5.1
The proposed prioritisation methodology for undertaking conservation area
reviews has been developed and used as the basis for a desk top review of all
47 conservation areas. The methodology includes the following headings:


Date designated – the earlier the date the higher the score as there is
more potential for change;
Degree of change since designation/ review – measuring the type,
size and frequency of development since designation;
3 of 7



Boundaries – identification of boundary revisions required, including
potential extensions and reductions;
Inaccuracies – identification of errors associated with notable buildings,
trees and spaces;
Character areas – identification of potential character areas.
5.2
Basingstoke Town scored the highest number of points overall but specifically
for the level of change since the original designation. As a result it is proposed
to undertake a review of Basingstoke Town Conservation Area in conjunction
with the production of a management plan first. This review will also act as a
pilot review that will help to inform proposals for taking forward a programme of
conservation area review for all the remaining conservation areas. This will
assist in determining the resource implications and will help to set a standard
method of assessment and format for the documents
6.0
Consultation and adoption methodology
6.1
The proposed methodology for consultation and adoption is set out in Appendix
3. This includes a generic flow chart that demonstrates the proposed stages of
consultation, both internally, with ward members/town councils/parish councils
as appropriate and with the community. A more detailed methodology has
been produced for Basingstoke Town (Appendix 4) to provide a more detailed
example of the stages proposed in the methodology. This should be read in
conjunction with the Basingstoke Town Conservation Area Review Project
Plan.
7.0
Corporate Implications
7.1
Financial Implications
7.1.1
The cost of undertaking the prioritisation methodology, priority list,
consultation and adoption methodology and review of Basingstoke Town
Conservation Area and production of a management plan are met by existing
budgets. A further review of financial implications for completing the
remainder of the programme will be undertaken once information has been
gathered on the time allocated to completing the Basingstoke Town review
and production of a management plan.
7.1.2
Any HR issues will be considered further following the outcome of the
resourcing review referenced in paragraph 7.1.1.
7.2
Risk Issues
7.2.1
Should the council fail to make progress with a programme of conservation
area review the following risks could face the council;
4 of 7

Increased likelihood of challenges at planning appeal and appeals being
allowed due to inaccuracies and out of date information contained within
the existing appraisals;

Erosion of the existing character and appearance of conservation areas
due to currently unidentified positive buildings, spaces and trees and
scope for their loss or development;

Erosion of character through the limited understanding of character
areas and their particular management issues resulting in poorly
informed development;

With no management plans in place there are limited provisions to proactively preserve and enhance the character and appearance of
conservation areas or put in place measures to address issues/ sites that
are having a harmful impact;

As time goes on the existing appraisals will become increasingly out of
date and will therefore require greater costs and time to review them in
the future;

Failure (consequently) to meet statutory requirements to from time to
time review conservation areas and to formulate and publish proposals
for their preservation or enhancement;

Failure (consequently) to comply with best practice which is to undertake
conservation area reviews every 5 years.
7.3
HR Issues
7.3.1
None arising from this report
7.4
Equalities
7.4.1
None arising from this report.
7.5
Legal Implications
7.5.1
None arising from this report.
7.6
Any Other Implications
7.6.1 None at this stage.
8.
Planning and Infrastructure Committee Comment
8.1
The Committee considered the report and made the following comments.

That Parish Councils and community groups are consulted as part of this
process at a very early stage. (Officer comment: See Appendix 3 and 4 for
revised method to include early engagement with ward members, parish
councils and local interest groups);

Concern was raised by some members that, during development plans,
conservation areas were not highlighted and kept up to date. (Officer
5 of 7
comment: New development within conservation areas is recorded on the
Council’s GIS system. This does not provide a review of the special
architectural and historic interest of the area and how it has changed over time,
whether positively or negatively);

Language used in the report concerning Old Basing should be more positive.
(Officer comment: See Appendix 5 for revised language relating to Old Basing);

Do not want to see original boundaries change during the review. (Officer
comment: See Paragraph 3.3 of this report);

The Committee want to gain a better understanding of unlisted heritage assets.
(Officer comment: The conservation area review process will provide an
opportunity to systematically identify non-designated heritage assets that are
currently unknown).

It is important to update the Tree Preservation Orders, new trees grow and
become important and older trees die. (Officer comment: Agreed)

Concern was raised regarding the current level of officer resource given to
undertake the work. (Officer comment: This will be reviewed through a process
of time recording for the first CAA undertaken to inform any decisions on future
resource requirements, please also refer to 7.1.1 above)

The Committee thanked the officers for the report.
The Committee Resolved:
1. Subject to the comments made above, supports the need to review
conservation area appraisals and to develop management plans as necessary;
2. Endorses the conclusion of the desk top review as set out in the prioritisation
list (Appendix 2 of the report);
3. Endorses the approach to consultation and adoption (Appendix 3 of the report)
for taking forward a programme of Conservation Area Review;
4. The Committee is concerned at the staffing levels in the Planning Department
and, in regard to this report, the Conservation Team;
5. That it is recommended to Cabinet that, through the forthcoming budget,
resources, staffing and capacity is made additionally available to the
Conservation Team in order to fulfil the review and carryout the work of
enforcement. (Officer comment: See Paragraph 7.1.1 of this report).
9.
Communication and Consultation
9.1
The proposed consultation methodology is set out in Appendix 3 and 4 as set
out in paragraph 6.1 above.
6 of 7
10.
Conclusion
10.1
Cabinet are requested to approve the proposed prioritisation methodology,
prioritisation list and approach to consultation for the proposed Conservation
Area Review and the recommendation set out in Section 2.
7 of 7