C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 5 is inappropriate, but we never got to analyse them together or to present a reasoned case to the members. Therein lies the IFA disappointment. Peter Hinton, CEO, IFA IHBC director Seán O’Reilly replies: PARN’s first recommendation is that the ‘IHBC and IFA should not consider a full merger at the present time’. The third and final recommendation was that we ‘should consult with [our] memberships before considering more structured joint working’. (See www. ihbc.org.uk) The research that underpins these recommendations followed a project design by the IFA, and agreed by the IHBC and by English Heritage, funders of the research. The project board, which included both IFA Chair Mike Dawson, and Peter, who also sits on PARN’s steering group, accepted the final report, presumably confirming that it satisfied the terms of Peter’s original project design. Throughout this process, the IHBC council or its director acceded to every key recommendation as a gesture of positive support for the exercise. If PARN’s recommendation against merger were only, or mainly, the result of a single meeting between representatives of both councils, and not the product of a serious engagement with the issues, it would represent very poor value from English Heritage’s investment and from all our time and effort. Nor would it have met the terms of the project design, and so would not have been accepted by the project board. The IHBC’s internal email consultation on PARN’s work, carried out in light of the concurrent development of our business plan, solidly rejected merger. As our institute is strongly led, and served, by our volunteers, progressing discussions of merger in the face of PARN’s conclusions clearly would have been inappropriate. This was pointed out at the meeting between councils referred to in Peter’s letter. Following the research, PARN did recommend the creation of a joint committee that would help both institutes and their members appreciate in more depth the work of their fellow professionals. This was welcomed by the IHBC and endorsed by our council. PARN also listed areas that we might explore together in more detail. These did not specify merger as that issue had been addressed as a key part of the report and its recommendations. Seán O’Reilly Professional advice From Peter Richards, IHBC member As a founder member of the ACO, the 100th issue of Context (July 2007) was of particular, if nostalgic, interest.While I am not engaged in building conservation on a day-to-day basis, I keep in touch and keep my eyes and ears open. Over 24 years one thing I notice has not changed. A major issue from the very earliest days was the lack of conservation advice in many district councils which were the guardians of important parts of our built heritage. I am reminded of this in my travels throughout the kingdom. It is clear that professional advice is not available in many areas. Can the IHBC not make stronger efforts to ensure that no local planning authority can decide listed building and conservation area applications unless qualified advice is available? Finally, I am constantly impressed by the quality of Context in both content and presentation: keep it up. Peter Richards IHBC director Seán O’Reilly replies: The IHBC absolutely endorses the need for appropriate skills in local planning authorities. Members, volunteers and staff have worked hard to promote and encourage them. Integrating the historic environment management systems more effectively into the corporate structures of the authorities should raise standards. The IHBC considers that placing a statutory duty of care for the historic environment on local planning authorities would promote such integration, but current political trends do not support this. At present we are working in the context of heritage protection (in England andWales) to see what additional tools might be used to encourage the application of suitable skills, and to map out what skills are actually available locally. Seán O’Reilly From ‘Arrival and departure’ by Lionel Brett, Architectural Review, July 1955 ARCHITECTS, eternal middlebrows, quite artistic, quite scientific, looking wistfully in both directions from their position of pure neutrality, must not be deluded on this issue. Ultimately, though they speak knowingly of passengers being processed, they are on the side of the puddles and the two-mile walk from the Rochester Arms. They are on the side of life, and they must never do anything which makes life duller, more uniform or more undramatic. For the essence of travel, symbol of our journey through life, is drama, and the role of the architect is to heighten the drama by the way he sets and shifts the scene. Take, for instance, the silence as the stage-coach rattled off round the bend, taking her travelling-companions of the endless night away for ever. Jane Eyre stands absolutely alone in the golden morning sun, begins to hear larks singing, or an early ploughman calling to his horses. New life and love lie ahead cross the dew‑drenched fields, and this pause is their essence, their saviour. It can be the same, if we are allowed the moment, as the plane door bangs open at Cairo or Nice, and we stand regally on the top step in the astonishing heat and glare, overdressed, blinded, our ears buzzing. If the architect as airport planner does not speak up for this moment, no one else will, and we shall find ourselves emplaning everywhere as one now has to embark at Southampton, via a totally enclosed gangway, just another corridor, this time from the hideous lounge of the Ocean Terminal to the hideous lounge of the Queen Mary – missing altogether the wind, the incredible height of the ship’s side and the dangerous slit of filthy water miles below.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=