 |
Home | |
Next Meeting | |
Past Meetings | |
About the Forum | |
Links | |
Contact | |
Past meeting
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Building of Bath Collection, Countess of Huntingdon's Chapel, The Vineyards, The Paragon, Bath BA1 5NA
Bath's World Heritage Status
> Initial bulletin and information (posted) > Conclusions of the discussion (posted) > Proponent's response (below) > Comments on the response (below)Proponent's Response
Proponent:
BetterBath Forum Fifth Meeting 18 April 2009
Response to Conclusions
Conclusion 1
(Action Recipient: David Beeton)
The meeting welcomed the work on sustainable world heritage and citizenship which the Bath Preservation Trust and B&NES have recently launched with local schools and considered that this should be extended to cover adults as well as schoolchildren, and to encompass better interpretation for visitors. The World Heritage Steering Group should ensure that a comprehensive education and interpretation programme is developed, and monitor its implementation and effectiveness.
Response:
As Chairman of the World Heritage Steering Group, I fully recognise the vital role that education and interpretation plays in ensuring the protection and enhancement of the City. The Steering Group has recently seen excellent examples of partnership initiatives in producing education packs for schools. It is of course for future generations that we strive to ensure that the City survives uncompromised and to the younger generation now in school that we will soon pass the responsibility for this task. Without providing our young people with an appreciation of their culture and heritage, we cannot hope to inspire them to take on the challenge.
We have also recently seen promising interpretation initiatives such as World Heritage Day. Education is important for those of all ages, and the recent promotional event provided many examples of increased understanding and appreciation of Bath from both residents and visitors.
There are already proposals to repeat and expand these current projects and to add more.
With regard to the development of new programmes, the revised Management Plan (upon which work has started), will provide the framework to develop these. The key challenge for the Steering Group is to ensure that the commitments of the new plan are translated into real action on the ground. This is a role which I believe that the 'refreshed' Steering Group is both qualified and determined to fulfil. We will be looking to all partners to buy into this thinking, and for commitment, resource and delivery.
Conclusion 2
(Action Recipient: Cllr Malcolm Hanney)
The meeting was disappointed that only two Councillors attended this discussion, and considered that this was symptomatic of the current level of political indifference to Bath’s heritage. Other examples of low political priority were quoted, including the very limited extent to which the WHS Management Plan has been implemented; the fact that the income from the Roman Baths is not ploughed back into maintaining the city’s heritage; and the inadequate accommodation for the city’s exceptionally valuable Archives. The Management Plan is due to be reviewed in 2009. The Council should give an undertaking that, following this review, adequate resources will be made available to implement the WHS Management Plan properly. They should also ensure that as part of the project to relocate the Council’s offices, suitable accommodation is found in Bath for the Archive Department.
Response:
I would strongly refute the suggestion that the Council is indifferent to Bath's Heritage.
The true picture of heritage management is that the Council has been, and continues to be, a committed and efficient steward of the World Heritage Site. There are approximately 5,000 listed buildings within the Site, which is one of the highest concentrations in the country. My officers struggle to provide me with a single example of a listed building demolished in the last 15 years, despite the development of high quality city centre development such as the Thermae Bath Spa, Milsom Place and Southgate.
Considerable investment has been made both in terms of resources and expertise. The Urban Regeneration Panel brings together some of the sharpest minds in the Country to guide our development, a new Chair has been appointed to the World Heritage Site Steering Committee (David Beeton), previously Chief Executive of the Royal Palaces Agency, together with the appointment of a World Heritage Manager to co-ordinate actions.
The Public Realm and Movement Strategy is being progressed, backed by the Commercial Estates Review to provide funds for implementation. The Roman Baths continue (by prudent management) to attract a substantial number of visitors and generate secure incomes. At the same time the investment in conservation and interpretation at the Baths has been substantial. The Heritage Services business activities have since 1998 provided for revenue reinvestment in the Service of between £250k and £500k per annum.
The above must be balanced against the fact that we are one of the lowest funded unitary authorities in the country.
As UNESCO (report due to be published in June 2009) and the Council review matters relating to the World Heritage Site we will consider carefully what commitments the Council is able to make in terms of its direct funding against the background of the general funding outlook for the public sector beyond 2011, which will be challenging, irrespective of who is in government. It will also need to take account of the existing £2.3 million grant shortfall from government and additional burdens being placed on the Council and its taxpayers – e.g. £1.3m to cover the cost of free bus passes that Government was meant to fund. These two amounts alone total the equivalent of 5% on Council Tax.
The Council will have to live within its means and that will mean that its overall commitments will need to be appropriately balanced. Notwithstanding this the importance of the archives and the need for better accommodation for the Bath Record Office is well understood and is being considered as part of the wider review of the Council's accommodation needs.
Conclusion 3
( Action Recipient: Cllr Charles Gerrish)
The meeting heard about the problems caused by lack of clarity about what was and was not acceptable in terms of architectural design, and about other local authorities which have made use of the resources of local voluntary organisations to develop a more comprehensive suite of planning policies than Bath currently has. The Council should use the expertise available within the Bath Preservation Trust and other local organisations to develop planning policies which will protect Bath’s historic environment and to provide clear guidance on design standards.
Response:
The statutory planning policy framework for the City of Bath is in the process of being reviewed through the development of the Core Strategy and through the refresh of the World Heritage Site Management Plan. The Council recognises the wealth of expertise which local organisations have, and would welcome the input of appropriate groups at an early stage in developing planning policy and guidance. It is proposed that a meeting be held with the Bath Preservation Trust to discuss this idea and potentially develop it further. This may in turn lead to a review of the Local Development Scheme.
Conclusion 4
(Action recipient: Cllr Terry Gazzard)
One speaker queried the desirability of development within the city, while another felt that offices as well as retail space should have been provided in the new Southgate. The majority view appeared to be that sustainable development was necessary to create new job opportunities to replace the manufacturing which had generated much of Bath’s prosperity in the past. The London Road was mentioned as an area ripe for improvement, where there was a need for investment to rectify past planning failures, and potential for local people to take pride in the heritage of the area as the historic gateway to the city. The Council’s plans for regeneration in Bath should include initiatives to improve areas such as the London Road.
Response:
The need for sustainable growth, as highlighted at the meeting, will be central to plans for the future development and regeneration of the city. An approach to delivering sustainable growth has been agreed by the Council. This aims to ensure growth is rooted in local needs and opportunities and is harnessed to delivering the Council’s Vision, taking into account the place based Future for Bath proposition.
In Bath the city centre is a key economic driver and the main opportunities for delivering sustainable growth will be along the river, westward from the centre toward Newbridge, opportunity sites, such as more effective use of MoD land holdings, and, subject to the outcome of the planning process, an urban extension. These must therefore be the focus for delivery.
The Council is producing a Regeneration Delivery Plan for the central/riverside area of Bath that will be linked to the new Core Strategy planning document and will include community engagement to help inform and shape its development.
However, the need for action at neighbourhood level is also recognised and work is currently underway with communities in the Whiteway and London Road/Snowhill areas of the city.
In Whiteway work is in progress to help empower the local community to secure the improvements they identify as being important for their neighbourhood. The project has been enabled through funding provided by Local Strategic Partnership members, including the Council.
In the London Road/Snowhill area a lot of consultation and other work has been undertaken by the community. The Council is now working with community representatives to provide support in building upon this work to produce an action plan. The intention is that this will provide a basis for determining priorities and seeking the resources necessary to help the community deliver on these priorities.
Conclusion 5
(Action Recipient: Cllr Charles Gerrish)
The meeting noted the controversy attached to some aspects of the Bath Transport Package but endorsed the urgent need to reduce the adverse impact of vehicles on the historic city. There was whole-hearted agreement on the need to improve the cleanliness of the city centre and to deal more effectively with maintenance problems. Bath should not be the world headquarters for broken paving slabs. The Council needs to review its street sweeping and pavement washing operations to bring the cleanliness of the heritage areas of Bath up to the highest Government standard by the end of 2010. The Council should begin a programme of renewal and maintenance which will see all broken and uneven paving slabs in the heritage areas of Bath replaced by the end of 2010.
Response:
The Council is reviewing its street sweeping and pavement operations in partnership with the Bath City Liaison Forum and proposals will be considered by the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Panel which will then make recommendations for changes to the Cabinet Member to consider in the light of available funding. In the meantime, an additional sum of £54,000 has been added into the budget for street cleaning in 2009/10 and it is intended to utilise this to help address these issues.
It is planned to implement a programme of replacing damaged and broken paving slabs across the heritage area of Bath as part of the Council's Public Realm and Movement Strategy. In the meantime, any serious defects will be dealt with on a priority basis within available funding
Conclusion 6
(Action Recipient: Sam Holliday)
The meeting welcomed the Bath Chronicle’s ‘Pride in Bath’ campaign and noted that the Chronicle has a strong track record in engaging the local community. The Bath Chronicle should work with the World Heritage Steering Group and other local organisations to help to create a better understanding of the heritage which makes Bath so special.
Response:
The Bath Chronicle has faithfully reported the concerns and action of those who support World Heritage in the city and we will continue to do so. The Chronicle, like most other organisations in the city, recognises the importance to the status and economy of the city of having the prized World Heritage status and although our role as a newspaper is to give a voice to all opinion – including those who do not value the status – we will ensure that all these issues are given prominence and World Heritage status will be a factor in any campaigns that we support. Furthermore we are currently in negotiation with the Bath Preservation Trust about a regular column in the paper talking about the importance of World Heritage status and what we can all do to support it.
Comments
| From time to time Bath features in national newspapers as being one of the most polluted cities in the country. An overabundance of tour buses and a free for all for international coaches ensures that our buildings (and our lungs) suffer year after year. Bath`s Heritage status and those who live and work here are disrespected. The damage is being done and the Council is a party to this. |
| Posted: 24-05-2009 by John Lindley |
| Nobody can take the Listed Buildings department seriously. Notwithstanding their extensive discretion on applications, they are illogical, disingenuous and unnecessarily expensive to potential investors in Bath. What is their history? Their expertise? Their relative knowledge of aesthetics? Do they need to have any experience with the art of Georgian/classical architecture which constitutes Bath? Do they have a desire to preserve and protect it or to ruin it with glass and steel? It would seem that they do not need any aesthetic knowledge or ability whatsoever; it’s just another Council job. They would not know good proportion if it hit them in the face. This is wrong and should be addressed. Furthermore, the Bath Preservation Trust have shown themselves to be untrustworthy relation to the Holburne Museum monstrosity. How can anyone even think of asking the Bath Preservation Trust for help or advice after this blatant breach of trust. This is not heritage (look up the word), this is criminal damage! Consequently, there needs to be a new body that understands why Bath was built the way it was and why this classical style makes Bath worth visiting and/or living in. There should also be retrospective action on those buildings that are deemed unsuitable by many, but allowed for whatever reason. There should be new laws enacted to allow for the destruction of ugly buildings no matter how long they have existed or how expensive they were to build. I suggest that Bath should be rid of anything that does not help to elevate its status. |
| Posted: 22-05-2009 by Marcus Westbury |
| The responses on Whiteway and the London Road/Snowhill area were so nebulous that they were pointless. It would have been good to have had some indication of what actions were taking place to improve these long-neglected areas. The residents have lots of ideas and enthusiasm, but can the same be said of the council? |
| Posted: 21-05-2009 by Jenny Rust |
Add your comments
Comments will be vetted for offensive or inappropriate content:
see privacy statement.
Your name, email, telephone and comments are required.
Register your interest
Register to receive emailed information about forthcoming business.
Suggest a subject
If there is an important local issue that you think the Forum should discuss, please use the following link to send us your idea, and we'll get in touch with you.
Make a suggestion - Click here