CEN/R1.2/OBJ11/CUL Rebuttal to Proof of Evidence from Dr Chris Miele (VSH Nominee) By Chris Surfleet - Cultural Heritage
CEN/R1.2/OBJ11/CUL REBUTTAL PROOF OF EVIDENCE CHRIS SURFLEET CULTURAL HERITAGE TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992 MIDLAND METRO (BIRMINGHAM CITY CENTRE EXTENSION LAND ACQUISITION AND VARIATION) ORDER INQUIRY NOVEMBER 2014
1.1 I have reviewed the evidence given by Dr Miele and wish to identify the following specific points therein. Whilst I have selected various points for comment, my silence on other points not mentioned should not be taken as agreement with them Setting as an asset 1.2 In 3.4.8 of his proof, Dr Miele states that In this particular case, the setting I consider itself to be an asset. I consider that this is not an appropriate definition for setting and skews the assessment of its relationship to the designated assets. English Heritage specifically explains this point as follows: Setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation. Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset. (CEN/P4.3/CUL/2 The Setting of Heritage Assets 2.4 page 7) 1.3 This is an important clarification and exposes a potential error in the way in which Dr Miele is defining setting and, as a result, making assessments of it as if it were an asset in itself. As English Heritage states, setting is not a heritage asset. Change to setting does not necessarily cause harm to the asset, but you may conclude so if you consider setting to be the asset. 1.4 As a result of this misunderstanding, assessments of harm to setting appear to have been taken by Dr Miele as representing a harmful impact on the asset, whereas it is the impact that that harm has on the significance of the asset which is the issue in question. 1.5 In 3.116-3.122, Dr Miele provides a summary of the guidance contained within English Heritage s The Setting of Heritage Assets. He omits the reference above to setting is not a heritage asset. He also does not refer to the section referring to evolution of places; views on what comprises a heritage asset s setting may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve (CEN/P4.3/CUL/2 2.2 page 4). This omitted section provides an important recognition of change, particularly in the urban context. This acknowledgement of change is particularly relevant as some of Dr Miele s later comments appear to reflect an identification of change rather than harm. The guidance also specifically states the following: Protection of the setting of heritage assets need not prevent change. Most places are within the setting of a heritage asset and are subject to some degree of change over time. (CEN/P4.3/CUL/2 4.1 page 15) Assessments of harm 1.6 In 6.9, Dr Miele refers to a change in character. I agree that there would be some change in character to replace the existing roadway and levels with a more attractively designed streetscape, but clearly change need not in itself imply a harmful impact, contrary to what Dr Miele concludes. 1.7 In 6.9, Dr Miele suggests that an engineered environment would be created as a result of the tram stop to the south of the Town Hall. He appears not to recognise the presence of the current road, kerbing and railings as an existing engineered
environment. This is a misunderstanding of the difference between the existing situation and the proposals; that misunderstanding necessarily calls into question the downstream analysis. 1.8 In 6.10, the evidence exaggerates the harmful effect of the tram-stop s presence and assumes the presence of elements which are not proposed. 1.9 In 6.12, Dr Miele makes the assumption that physical elements required for the tram stop would be required irrespective of the sensitivity of this location. I dispute this assertion. It displays a lack of attention to the proposals and a lack of regard for the care with which the design of the scheme and the importance of the location has been taken into account by Centro. 1.10 With reference to paragraph 6.19, Dr Miele describes the Town Hall as a classical temple. It is important to note that, rather than being a classical temple, the Town Hall - albeit classically inspired - is a civic building which was designed in the 19 th century to perform administrative functions, occupying an adapted classical building type. In the 19 th century, horse-drawn trams fed the city centre and supported its function, including the immediate context of the Town Hall and Victoria Square. The relationship between the classically-inspired Town Hall and the tramway is therefore not as polar as Dr Miele would like to suggest in this section. 1.11 In 6.21, Dr Miele concludes major adverse impact on the Town Hall as a result of the proposals. This, in my view, exaggerates the effects, is not borne out by evidence and is seemingly based on his incorrect assumptions regarding the design of the tram-stop and its associated elements. 1.12 In 6.25, Dr Miele does not explain in what way and to what degree the change to the setting of VSH will be harmful. If it is change alone, it need not be harmful. 1.13 In 6.27, the attractiveness of the entrance lobby of VSH is not dependent on the opening of the corner door. An attractive use and appearance of this ground floor space could derive from a number of alternative approaches to the existing planform, with no requirement for the door to be re-opened to achieve this end. 1.14 Paragraph 6.30 refers to the location of fixings on VSH being challenging due to the elaborate architectural detailing. In fact, a number of appropriate fixing points exist on the elevation as part of the pilaster elements, and have been utilised as fixing points in the past. I consider that Dr Miele is making assumptions regarding the level of impact, unsubstantiated by fact. 1.15 In 6.33, Dr Miele is assuming the likely use of stanchion or pole fixings. This may not be the case and is not intended. As he states in 6.30, exact details and methods of building fixing will be submitted as part of subsequent applications for Listed Building Consent. 1.16 In 6.34, Dr Miele concludes that harm would be caused to VSH, but he does not clarify the level of harm which he identifies he merely states that it is less than the level of harm identified for the Town Hall. His frequent references to paragraphs 132-134 of the NPPF require a closer attention to the level of harm.
1.17 In 6.34, Dr Miele also states that the proposals would likewise harm the character of the Conservation Area, but he is imprecise about the level of harm resulting. 1.18 In 6.48, Dr Miele states that there would be significant harm caused to the Conservation Area. He does not specify this in terms of the levels of harm as expressed in the NPPF. Consideration of 2003 and 2013 Environmental Statements 1.19 In paras 7.27ff, Dr Miele addresses the content and method of the 2003 ES. To some extent, I agree with the limitations of the method employed at the time, but I consider that the Inspector took very careful account of the levels of impact resulting to the individual heritage assets in drawing his conclusions and, in particular, in balancing potential harm and benefit. He made a very clear summary in this regard, and in the context of the relevant sections of the 1990 Act. The thrust of the conclusions is largely in accordance with current practice. 1.20 I consider that Dr Miele is cursory in his assessment of the 2013 ES. The document does, in fact, refer to the relevant guidance and employs a method which is appropriate. My own findings identify only three differences in the assessment of impact levels, as described in my proof of evidence. Dr Miele has not been sufficiently specific or detailed in his criticisms of the method or findings of the ES. Consideration of alternatives 1.21 The sequential assessment of alternatives is well recognised in planning law and has recently been considered in the Forge Field judgement. In my assessment of the heritage impacts of the alternative routes offered, Option A (via Hill Street) would result in equivalent or greater impacts to the setting of the Town Hall due to the landscaping and OHLE required to overcome the level changes and to negotiate the corner into Paradise Street. Option B would have a lower direct impact on the fabric and setting of listed buildings along the Variation route, but would also offer much less support for the use and vitality of the Square and its associated heritage assets. As such, in the context of the alternatives, I consider that Option A does not offer advantages in heritage terms, and Option B is preferable in heritage terms but does not achieve the same level of benefit for the use of the city centre and, indirectly, its heritage assets. The assessment of the options by Dr Miele, and also by myself, is relevant to any overall judgment but is not in itself determinative since all material considerations need to be weighed appropriately. 1.22 In 10.6, Dr Miele acknowledges the potential to improve the setting of the Grade II listed Signal Box in Navigation Street through enhancements associated with a tram stop in place of existing road infrastructure. He does not make similar positive assessments of the improvements associated with the replacement of the existing road-dominated setting to the south of the Town Hall. 1.23 The clear and convincing justification referred to in Paragraph 132 of the NPPF does not only refer to the provision of alternative solutions, although this could be one of the measures flowing from it. Clear and convincing justification may arise in
the form of the delivery of other benefits or outcomes (such as the delivery of the tram system to the city centre) but Dr Miele refers frequently only to alternative routes as the means for providing such justification. My findings 1.24 I conclude that Dr Miele has made certain errors or misjudgements in arriving at his conclusions regarding the levels of impact resulting from the proposals. In particular, he has not substantiated his arrival at major adverse harm in relation to the setting of the Town Hall and, in relation to other assets, he is imprecise regarding the levels of harm which he identifies. 1.25 In addition, he appears to have assumed certain impacts or outcomes relating to items which he believes will be required rather than those actually proposed, directly leading to increased assessments of harm. 1.26 He appears inconsistent in his acknowledgement and assessment of improvements to existing road infrastructure, and therefore their potential enhancement of setting resulting from the proposed works. 1.27 Dr Miele is also cursory in his assessment of the 2013 ES which provides the basis for the assessment of the impacts of the Variation route, despite its references to the appropriate legislation and guidance, and a methodology which is consistent with ES best practice. 1.28 In concluding that insufficient justification has been provided to outweigh the identified levels of harm, he appears to ignore the clear conclusions of the Inspector in 2004 in this regard and the status of the existing 2005 Order.