---

Heritage

I congratulate the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) on securing the debate and I congratulate the Select Committee on its extremely useful report. I start by focusing on the report. Its summary states:"““We entrust protection of historic buildings and sites to the planning regime. Planning guidance has served us well but not perfectly””." It goes on to warn against too much reliance on local authorities without adequate resources. I concur. I emphasise the Committee’s statement that the Government should"““give a stronger signal to local authorities that the historic environment matters””" and that it may need additional statutory duties in order to be able to stress that it matters; and I concur with that also. Members will realise from my introduction that I want to focus on the need for local authorities to take their role in protecting the historic environment incredibly seriously. The Minister should tell his colleagues in the DCLG that if they want to make changes to the planning system, they must not jeopardise the conservation of our heritage. That is particularly so when planning applications relate to the area of a world heritage site, or the buffer zone around it. I am thinking particularly of the one in my constituency of Durham city, although I stress that Durham has a number of beautiful listed buildings that belong to our mining heritage, the university and churches. I hope that the Government will continue to press local authorities where necessary to produce world heritage site management plans. Durham city council with its partners has produced such a plan. It has significant weaknesses, most notably because it cannot overrule local authority planning policies. It is not always up to the standard required to protect the built environment—in particular, to protect it from development around the buffer zone. I want the Minister to think about how his Department and the DCLG can monitor management plans and, in particular, the impediments to their effectiveness. I agree with the Committee that more must be done. My local authority may be surprised, but it supports paragraph 155 which states that if the Government are serious about their historic protection reforms, they must fund local authorities adequately so that they can take that role seriously. Officers who are in charge of and can provide good advice about conservation must not have their time taken up with routine planning applications. The issue is not all about more funding and time, because the officers must use their powers more effectively; however, the Government must take that point on board. I agree with the Committee that more must be done to support English Heritage. It does a wonderful job in my constituency. The more development there is in historic towns, the greater the need for such organisations. They must be not only valued, but properly supported. It is notable that four MPs from the north-east have attended today’s debate. We take our culture and heritage extremely seriously, and I hope that we can continue to raise such issues in Parliament.