Consultation outcome

Consultation on Improvements to the system of Listed Building Consents

This consultation was published under the 2010 to 2015 Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government

This consultation has concluded

Download the full outcome

Government response to the Consultation on Improving Listed Building Consent

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (eg a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email publications@culture.gsi.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Government response to the Consultation on Improving Listed Building Consent

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (eg a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email publications@culture.gsi.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Detail of outcome

Government response to the Consultation on Improving Listed Building Consent.

Original consultation

This consultation ran from to

Summary

This consultation has now ended. The consultation period was 26 July to 23 August 2012.

Documents

Consultation document – Improving Listed Building Consents

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (eg a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email publications@culture.gsi.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Consultation document – Improving Listed Building Consents

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (eg a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email publications@culture.gsi.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Impact Assessment: Improving Listed Building Consents Public Consultation (Signed)

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (eg a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email publications@culture.gsi.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Impact Assessment: Improving Listed Building Consents Public Consultation

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (eg a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email publications@culture.gsi.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Consultation description

Government’s response to the Penfold Review of Non-Planning Consent (“Implementation of the Penfold Review”, BIS, November 2011) included a commitment to seek public consultation on simplifying the Listed Building Consent (LBC) system through measures to reduce the circumstances in which LBC is required and reduce the level of information applicants are required to submit, thus reducing burdens on developers and allowing the public agencies which administer these consents to focus upon the highest risk areas and to deliver a more efficient service. 

Potential measures were set out in the document. Wide-ranging pre-consultation discussions with heritage practitioners produced additional options for change. It is on both sets of options that we are consulting now. All are intended to meet the Penfold Review objectives, while ensuring that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, in line with the objectives of the NPPF, and at the same time to avoid increasing burdens on local planning authorities.