Good discussion on heritage that got at a few of the problems in the system around inconsistency and policies working at cross purposes. And also the totally different approaches to planning that are taken in different places - good planning authorities have a comprehensive pre-app where issues are solved in the round, and where there disagreements on policy the lead officer can take a decision about where the balance lies, meaning a recommendation can be made. But as the guest noted it doesn't always happen that way and culture is as much the challenges as regulation itself. A more rules based system might help, but heritage is very contextual, and for me its as much a question as how do you create an environment where the applicant and planning team can work together to get over design and policy challenges.
There were a few things to clarify though. In the London Plan there is the London View Management Framework which protects and manages views of St Paul's from buildings blocking the dome or being in the background. The SOS directed the mayor to have this some time ago. Some views are in fact infinite into the distance. It is a major barrier to maximising development, eg at Euston station.
Historic England should only really get involved in listed building consent applications where it must be consulted and has powers of call in and refusal. This is under separate legislation to regular planning. This is where you get into the very esoteric question of harm. If someone can explain to me what the 'upper end of less than substantial harm' is (which I've seen in consultation responses) I'd love to know.
However they are also consulted if a development affects a conservation area - and in central London that covers an awful lot of places. They can be very challenging if a new building affects the setting of listed buildings or can be seen from certain locations.
There are also local heritage and conservation officers who should be part of the planning team and deal with local conversation area and locally listed buildings - so the situation described in the pod of a heritage officer stopping something locally at the end of the process really shouldn't happen. That's just bad management of the process.
Does Manchester have the capacity to meet the visitor requirements? The actual sporting events is the easy part in many ways. Especially as Manchester's extra distance from the continent would reduce the number of day-trippers.
The host city contract requirements document specifies a need for 40,000 rooms per night, for officials not including athletes. That alone would consume most if not all the space available in Manchester City centre, and if those people are not good at room sharing, all of Greater Manchester as well. At least according to Visit Britain's 2016 Audit.
Good discussion on heritage that got at a few of the problems in the system around inconsistency and policies working at cross purposes. And also the totally different approaches to planning that are taken in different places - good planning authorities have a comprehensive pre-app where issues are solved in the round, and where there disagreements on policy the lead officer can take a decision about where the balance lies, meaning a recommendation can be made. But as the guest noted it doesn't always happen that way and culture is as much the challenges as regulation itself. A more rules based system might help, but heritage is very contextual, and for me its as much a question as how do you create an environment where the applicant and planning team can work together to get over design and policy challenges.
There were a few things to clarify though. In the London Plan there is the London View Management Framework which protects and manages views of St Paul's from buildings blocking the dome or being in the background. The SOS directed the mayor to have this some time ago. Some views are in fact infinite into the distance. It is a major barrier to maximising development, eg at Euston station.
Historic England should only really get involved in listed building consent applications where it must be consulted and has powers of call in and refusal. This is under separate legislation to regular planning. This is where you get into the very esoteric question of harm. If someone can explain to me what the 'upper end of less than substantial harm' is (which I've seen in consultation responses) I'd love to know.
However they are also consulted if a development affects a conservation area - and in central London that covers an awful lot of places. They can be very challenging if a new building affects the setting of listed buildings or can be seen from certain locations.
There are also local heritage and conservation officers who should be part of the planning team and deal with local conversation area and locally listed buildings - so the situation described in the pod of a heritage officer stopping something locally at the end of the process really shouldn't happen. That's just bad management of the process.
Does Manchester have the capacity to meet the visitor requirements? The actual sporting events is the easy part in many ways. Especially as Manchester's extra distance from the continent would reduce the number of day-trippers.
The host city contract requirements document specifies a need for 40,000 rooms per night, for officials not including athletes. That alone would consume most if not all the space available in Manchester City centre, and if those people are not good at room sharing, all of Greater Manchester as well. At least according to Visit Britain's 2016 Audit.
And we haven't included a single visitor yet.
https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Games/Future-Olympic-Hosts/HCC-Operational%20Requirements.pdf?_ga=2.131734031.1673268642.1630920916-177591988.1624877010
https://www.visitbritain.org/research-insights/england-accommodation-stock-audit