Tories plan to award Bath iconic planning status
The Conservatives would consider listing Bath’s entire city centre if they won power at the general election, shadow arts secretary Ed Vaizey has told Property Week.
Vaizey said the Tories would look at giving Bath “iconic status”, which would prevent development of high-rise or office blocks near historic buildings.
He said the party would test the policy on the Tower of London, the Houses of Parliament and large-scale cathedrals first.
The idea is a reaction to Unesco’s threat in 2009 to remove Bath’s world heritage status because of the city’s Western Riverside development.
The Tories believe developments that interfere with scenic views surrounding historic buildings could damage tourism and the local economy.
“We don’t want to stop the growth of our cities, but our heritage makes our cities attractive places to visit and this boosts tourism,” Vaizey said.
Vaizey said that, under the proposals, the Conservatives would not be against the idea of tall buildings in cities, but would encourage developers to cluster them into specific areas.
“Some of our most iconic buildings such as the Tower of London and the Houses of Parliament are in danger of being crowded out by tall buildings,” Vaizey said. “One thing that’s been overlooked is where these buildings sit within the wider landscape.”
Unesco has warned that the Tower of London is at risk of being put on its world heritage “danger list”, because of concerns that surrounding developments overshadowed the site following an inspection in 2006.
The following year, the International Council on Monuments and Sites UK criticised the government for approving the 50-storey Vauxhall Tower in south London because of fears it would obstruct views of the Palace of Westminster.
Vaizey said that, while the iconic status proposal was not written in the Conservative manifesto, which was published last week, it should be considered one of their manifesto policies.
An English Heritage spokesperson said: ”We would happily look at any new proposals from the future government that benefit the historic environment and are in the public interest.”
Click here to register for our FREE live General Election TV debate with John Healey and Bob Neill
Want news like this straight to your inbox? Sign up here for alerts.
Why is Mr Vaizey dragging up an old story?
Simon Milton sent a letter of to Unesco to try and help Westminster and English Heritages case against the 20 Fenchurch St tower in the public inquiry. They lost the case quite conclusively. However as a sop to appease them a new sightline was created for the view of the Tower of London from City Hall & Potters field Park.
“Vaizey said that, under the proposals, the Conservatives would not be against the idea of tall buildings in cities, but would encourage developers to cluster them into specific areas.”
If it hasn’t escaped Mr Vaizey’s notice the City of London already has a specific area for highrises with a number of live construction projects that will in the next couple of years add to this cluster so what exactly is he proposing that will protect the Tower of London? Perhaps he might want to avert his eyes downward to ground level and do something about the predominately terrible low rise architecture that surrounds the Tower. Similarly he might want to do something about the urban motorway that encircles the Tower of London.
I am afraid that this is the sort of hip shooting policy making that gives politics a bad name. Why do politicians make these sorts of statements without due consideration or adequate knowledge?
When Ed Vaizey says “entire City centre”, where does he mean? The locical area of this description incorporates some of the most reviled or unattractive buildings in Bath – Hilton Hotel, James Street Government offices, Manvers Street Police Station
Is he not aware that Western Riverside, where the UNESCO threat originated is outside this area?
To extend the “centre” to include Western Riverside would also see listed the Homebase store, Sainsburys, a number of uninspiring car dealerships, the Leisure Centre, Balance Street flats to name but a few.
This would actually bring Bath to its knees, with redevelopment made so difficult as to deter any developer from even visiting Bath. If this is the case, why not just turn Bath into a Georgian theme park for the benefit of tourists, moving out the residents, replacing them with actors. No wonder the Council are looking at Keynsham for their new offices. Bath would certainly be impossible under a regime such as this.
Thanks for your comments, guys. It did seem a bit of a strange one to me as I couldn’t see anything like this in the Conservative planning “green paper”. If it was a long-standing plan then surely it would’ve been in there. Thanks, Rich
Leave your response!
Public Property Summit
Send us your people moves
We want to hear from you
Most read
Most commented
Who or what is in the news...
Budget 2010 carbon dioxide civil service CLG communities and local government conservatives council councils Development drivers jonas election Election 2010 energy General election government Green HCA Housing Ian Smith infrastructure john healey king sturge labour Liberal Democrats liverpool local authorities london manchester manifesto NAO national audit office NHS office of government commerce OGC OJEU planners Planning Procurement property Property Week public property Regeneration RTPI total place Treasury
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.