safe (if unofficial)mooring, and the courtesy of river-users remained (almost always) of the highest order. Our final daywas, perhaps, the most
challenging, for the Thames is tidal belowTeddington, and the water swift, choppy and wide.With a motorboat escort,we arrived at Kelmscott House to an enthusiasticwelcome committee. Its private tenants, the Birney family, togetherwith theWilliam Morris Society, opened the house to us and threw a party in the garden, where the crew (weatherbeaten but unbowed) enjoyed a well-deserved drink. Inspired as we were by William
Morris, the generous donations totalling more than £3,000 indicate thatmany were inspired themselves by our endeavours to support the Scholarship. Scholars themselves usually travel to fast in order to see as much as possible –20,000miles in the ninemonths of the Scholarship is not unusual.
Andrew Townsend, AndrewZiminski, Robert Williams, Boris Bogdanovic, Jo Kelly, Harry Wardill, Roger Mears, Drew Meakin, Henry Sanders, Jan Schneidewind, Simon Stevens and David Neaum. Further special thanks go to:
Journey’s end: Happily aground at Kelmscott House in west London, after seven days afloat to raise funds for the Dance Trust. From left, Drew Meakin, Hugh Conway Morris, Henry Sanders, Harriet Von Fritsch, Jan Schneidewind, Tony Evans, David Evans and Robert Williams
Yet if the trip taught us anything, perhaps it is that learning to understand the landscape is just as important as studying the buildings which the landscape itself brought forth. This is surely something ofwhich Morris, in his
slow journeys up the beloved Thames, would have approved. It remains to thank our dedicated
crew,many ofwhom stayed on board or returned days after they had planned to leave. There has been much talk of “next time”–to which I can only reply, with great enthusiasm, “Watch this space”.
OUR thanks go to the crew: Hugh ConwayMorris, Lucy Stewart, Tony Evans,David Evans,Harriet von Fritsch,
The Birney family at Kelmscott House; The WilliamMorris Society; TheDance Scholarship Trust's patron, Candida Lycett Green; Ian Angus; Shawn Kholucy; our photographers, John Lawrence and Simon Barber;Deb Sanders, for an excellent picnic at Iffley Lock; Kirstie Robbins, for a similarly excellent picnic at Hurley; Shiplake College, for the loan of their island; Rachel Bower, for keeping the Scholars in the Thames Valley;David Buckland, for the loan of lifejackets; The Cherwell Boathouse, for training boats; Peter Preston and Margaret Townsend, for logistical support; all friendswho put us up, and all our generous sponsors.
L
Planning upheaval leaves heritage weaker, andnear the back of the queue
ast year brought a great sea-change in policy and guidance that applies to
planning and the historic environment in England. Previously, policy and guidance were combined in a single document – PPG15 – which had done service for more than 15 years under several governments. Its successor, PPS5, was introduced in April 2010 and confined policy issues to a main documents and removed guidance to a separate Practice Guide. PPS5 was not uncontroversial,
particularly in its new emphasis on “significance” as the factor that should determine whether or not an application was acceptable, but the document was well-crafted and took a leap forward in embracing the historic environment as whole rather than pigeon-holing its constituent parts. Now, little more than a year
on, PPS5’s demise is imminent. The present government announced, in December last year, that it wished to combine all
14 Cornerstone, Vol 32, No 3 2011
planning policy into a single, concise document which, according to Greg Clark, Minister of State in the Department for Communities and Local Government, would show how the “planning system in England can contribute to the delivery of a prosperous, competitive and attractive country based on the values of freedom, fairness and responsibility”. In late spring a draft document
was issued by a small group of planning practitioners – rather than civil servants – who had been charged by the Minister with the preparation of a document to form the basis for the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The formal consultation draft
was published by CLG in July and, although it contained some changes and revisions, largely followed the practitioners’ initial document. This draft does, at least, contain a “heritage” section – although this is a mere three pages long and is placed near the end of the document.
More concise government
planning policy may not be a bad thing in itself, but the draft has major weaknesses in failing to form a firm link between the historic environment and “sustainable development” (its core idea).Also, despite assurances from the Minister and Practitioners themselves that the NPPF will not lessen heritage protection, the draft seems weaker, when compared to PPS5, in terms of the safeguards it offers to grade II listed buildings and the undesignated historic environment. These failings have been pointed out to government, and it is hoped that they will be addressed. Meanwhile, the National Trust
and others have raised serious concerns about the way in which the NPPF might lessen protection from development for the Green Belt. Separately, inWales, the First Minister has recently announced that his legislative programme includes provision for the introduction of a Heritage Bill
Matthew Slocombe
in 2014-15. This potentially places Wales ahead of England in terms of new primary legislation for the historic environment.
The Government has been running a series of framework consultation workshops on NPPF. Those coming include: London –Wednesday 28
September (10.30am to 12.30pm and 2pm to 4pm). Manchester – Tuesday 4
October (10.30am to 12.30pm and 2pm to 4pm). Oral hearings have also been
arranged – London, Wednesday 28 September (4.30pm to 5.30pm); and Manchester, Tuesday 4 October (10.30am to 12.30pm and 2pm to 4pm). Registration obligatory.
For more details and registration, phone 0303 44 41223, or email
paul.williams@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112