Prepared by DCMS (The UK State Party) dated 28th February 2012
Here is a link to a document produced by the DCMS at the request of Unesco.........by the 1st February.
This document goes on to outline how Liverpool Waters will seriously damage the OUV of the World Heritage Site.
It was only sent to 5 people one of those being the completely idle John Hinchliffe who will now try all he can to bury it for sure.
Here is an extract from pg
The UK Government welcomes this recognition of the progress made and the substantial amount of work involved in putting development strategies, planning procedures and management systems in place, largely reflecting the efforts of the City Council.
World Heritage sites in the UK are protected through specific national and local designations and the spatial planning system. National planning guidance on the historic environment (Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5)) emphasises the need to protect World Heritage properties as noted by the mission.
Since 2009, there has been a government planning circular in England specifically covering World Heritage (CLG Circular 07/09 The Protection of World Heritage Sites). This is supported by further English Heritage guidance, which has been endorsed by ministers. The Circular states:
• Statements of Outstanding Universal Value are key references for the effective protection and management of World Heritage Sites
• World Heritage Sites can also contribute to a national and local sense of community and to sustainable economic development and sustainable regeneration.
• Local authorities should have appropriate spatial planning policies to protect World Heritage properties which should aim to:
o protect the property and its setting, including any buffer zone, from inappropriate development,
o strike a balance between the needs of conservation, biodiversity, access, the interests of the local community and the sustainable economic use of the property in its setting
o protect a World Heritage Site from the effect of changes which are relatively minor but which, on a cumulative basis, could have a significant effect
o enhance the World Heritage Site where appropriate and possible through positive management
o protect World Heritage Sites from climate change but ensure that mitigation is not at the expense of authenticity or integrity
• World Heritage properties are a key material consideration in the planning system
• World Heritage properties should have Management Plans to protect their Outstanding Universal Value
• Management Plans should be prepared in a consensual way by the key stakeholders in each property, including significant landowners
• There should be a steering group of key stakeholders, including significant landowners
• Relevant policies in Management Plans are key material considerations in the spatial planning system
• Local authorities should support and promote World Heritage properties in all their actions, not just within the spatial planning system
• When a local authority is minded to grant consent for a planning application to which English Heritage has maintained an objection, the authority must refer the case to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for him to consider calling it in for decision at national level
The Government is currently reviewing planning policy guidance and intends to replace much of it with a much more succinct National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This will maintain existing levels of protection for World Heritage properties, which will continue to be treated as designations of the highest importance.
In Liverpool, the City Council has relevant policies in its Unitary Development Plan and, as noted above, adopted a Supplementary Planning Document in 2009 providing detailed planning guidance on the World Heritage property. This seeks:
“to provide guidance for protecting and enhancing the Outstanding Universal value of (the) World Heritage Site, whilst encouraging investment and development which supports a healthy economy and supports regeneration.”
Changing Times - I noticed that Sefton Council listened to residents, and reversed their previous decision to merge children and family centres. Good on them – heeding the ...