IHBC’s new Guidance Note on our online Toolbox briefs on ‘alacrity’ in heritage planning, a topic suggested by an appeal dismissed ‘partly because the appellant had not demonstrated ‘alacrity’, and references a separate unsuccessful appeal where the Inspector noted that ‘mothballing’ could ‘throw… buildings a lifeline in the hope of an alternative solution’, to conclude that ‘authorities should… not feel compelled to accept the only offer on the table at a particular time.’
IHBC research consultant and lead author on the IHBC’s Notes, Bob Kindred, writes:
Two main issues explored in this brief Guidance Note are:
- ‘Should heritage professionals test ‘alacrity’ in applicants’? and,
- ‘What happens to development proposals in the absence of this desirable attribute?’…
… It may be concluded from this that local planning authorities should be confident in considering the bigger picture and not feel compelled to accept the only offer on the table at a particular time.
IHBC Director Seán O’Reilly said: ‘IHBC Guidance Notes are produced as part of an integrated resource offering online support for conservation practitioners, the IHBC’s ‘Toolbox’.’
‘Our Toolbox has been developed to help inform, advise and guide anyone with specialist interests in built and historic environment conservation. Already it offers a wide range of basic resources – the ‘tools’ in the toolbox – from primary research and guidance produced by or on behalf of the IHBC, all in line with technical, academic and practice advice and standards supported or endorsed by the Institute.’
‘This Guidance Note on ‘Alacrity and alternative proposals’ addresses one of the most fundamental considerations in conservation practice – finance. By advising on known knowledge gaps in policy and practice such as this, our ToolBox fulfils the role for which it was conceived and designed’.
See all the ToolBox resources, see more Guidance Notes in the Toolbox and read the Guidance Note on Alacrity
