Clause 12 - Survey of area
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
I shall talk about amendments Nos. 87 and 178 in particular. Broadly speaking, the amendments attempt to achieve the same thing. I prefer the Liberal Democrat amendment, which refers to
''the historic environment of the area'',
to amendment No. 87, which refers to
''the historic sites and monuments of the area''.
I am not an expert on drafting amendments, but I think that our wording is probably better.
The amendments are intended to create a statutory basis for sites and monuments records. The current problem is that local authorities hold sites and monuments records voluntarily; there is no statutory duty. The records are used in the planning process; they are consulted to establish whether plans to build houses or roads will affect historic sites. There is great public interest in such matters. After all, this is the era of ''Time Team'', which involves Tony Robinson being filmed running around fields digging things up. There is much more interest than there used to be, and perhaps now is the time to put the sites and monuments records on a statutory footing. I would appreciate it if the Minister would give some thought to how that might be achieved, as the amendments might not represent the route that should be chosen.
Sites and monuments records serve two purposes. First, they assist the planning process—that is understandable—and secondly, they provide a local archive that can be consulted by researchers and members of the public. The records serve a double purpose. The fact that they are non-statutory means that they are often under-resourced and that quality varies considerably around the country. Some local authorities maintain excellent sites and monuments records; frankly, others do not do that to the same extent.
Changes to the county structure and the shifting of powers to the regional level make the matter more pressing. The need to consult the records must be put into statute because the planning tier at the regional
level will not hold those records. There should be a requirement to check the sites and monuments records, and local authorities should have to maintain those records to a certain standard. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is not necessary and that there are safeguards elsewhere, but I would like him to address the key issue of how the requirement can be introduced on a statutory basis. It may well be that the Bill is not the best way of doing that and that it could be done through regulation or some other means. However, there is a weakness in the current system and a danger, as we move towards a regional tier of planning, that that weakness might lead to problems. This is the first time since I have been involved in politics that my degree in mediaeval studies has been remotely useful, proving that if one waits long enough, anything can happen.
I follow the reasoning behind the other amendments. I hope that the Minister will address them. It is interesting that amendment No. 44 was not touched on. It requires the planning authority to keep under review those matters in subsections (2) and (3) rather than the word ''may''. I was half expecting the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to make more of that amendment; it is very worthy. The historic environment is key. I hope that the Minister can assure us that it will be considered, if only to ensure that he does not find himself—I am sure that he would not wish to do so—with Tony Robinson beating a path to his door and wanting to know why the Government have created a situation in which many of our historic sites could be unintentionally destroyed.