C O N T E X T 1 0 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8 49 Notes from the chair Challenging those professional stereotypes There are many in government who believe that the planning system is a barrier to investment and economic development. Thus while the Planning Bill, designed to implement Barker’s and Eddington’s recommendations, was stalled in Parliament in the spring, the government launched a further efficiency review. The Killian Pretty review is looking into how to make the development management process more efficient. One suggestion I have fed into the review is to consider how best to persuade developers to use skilled professional teams, especially with urban design and conservation abilities. A common cause of delay is the inability of the developer’s professional team to come up with the goods. The low priority and resources allocated to the heritage sector would tend to indicate that heritage protection is seen as a restrictive part of the planning system.Yet there is considerable evidence to challenge this view. Heritage professionals have delivered tens of millions of pounds worth of regeneration and enhancement works all around the UK over the past decade. Historic area grant schemes for conservation areas and projects involving listed buildings have been used creatively to trigger dramatic transformations of towns and cities. Heritage professionals are often working at the cutting edge of modern regeneration practice, working across sectors with local communities, stakeholders, developers, regeneration agencies, third sector organisations and other partners to transform local places, and deliver sustainable and communityoriented regeneration. Through such activities, heritage management has become integrated with wider place-making, planning and regeneration activities. Indeed, the use and adaptation of historic environments often achieves the best balance of interests between economy, community and environment, especially through the regeneration of inner-city areas. This is not just the case in underperforming areas, but also in fast-growing areas. A common feature of the most dramatic transformations has been appreciation by developers, local authorities and other public agencies of the importance of good urban design, distinctive new architecture and wellmaintained historic environments. The areas that are motoring in regeneration terms have placed great emphasis on place-making skills. Conversely, those areas that have adopted a ‘developmentat-any-cost’ approach have often failed to address their underlying problems, attracting only low value investment and poorly paid employment. This places them in direct competition with growing eastern economies whose products are based on low-wage labour. Regrettably, despite evidence to the contrary, there are still prominent figures within the sector who insist on parodying heritage professions as being inflexible and opposed to change. The evidence for this is usually based on someone they know who has not been able to replace some feature in their listed house.While I would not try to claim there are no instances of excessive inflexibility, it is clear that heritage professions in general are far more rounded and have delivered the goods over the past decade. Interestingly, urban design enjoys a far more positive image than heritage protection. This is ironic, as many services in both the public and private sectors are delivered by integrated urban design and conservation teams. Indeed, the professionals delivering urban design services are often the same people who are delivering conservation services. The explanation for this may have something to do with the evidence produced by CABE on the value and benefits of good design. Equally, the squeezing of funding for heritage in recent years would tend to indicate a failure of the sector to monitor and effectively communicate the significant benefits that heritage is delivering. Unfortunately, stereotypes and prejudices can be hard to challenge, and it does not help when some people are determined to reinforce them. Certainly there is a need to develop better monitoring and evidence of how heritage is delivering positive economic, social and environmental outcomes. But we also need to become smarter about our image, and how we promote and market the sector. Some of you may be groaning at the mention of image and marketing, but they are important.We can be extremely effective in practice, but still suffer from contraction of resources and loss of conservation posts if our value is not understood by decision makers at all levels, in all sectors. When I meet conservation professionals, I do not see sartorially challenged, dogmatic and inflexible nerds (well, there may have been the odd one over the years). I generally see highly committed, capable and pragmatic professionals with a genuine commitment to improving their local areas. I have been to numerous conferences and seminars where heritage professionals have presented truly inspirational case studies, illustrating how heritage projects are helping local communities, improving local environments and creating new opportunities. But we need a stronger evidential base, and more effective communication and influencing skills if we are to convert the doubters to the cause. English Heritage’s Heritage at Risk initiative and area grant schemes provide opportunities to gather data on the floor space brought back into use, new uses accommodated, jobs created and communities supported by investment in heritage projects.We must also persuade regional development agencies and other regeneration bodies to differentiate projects involving heritage assets in the recording of their data. For those who prefer to peddle a sad and inaccurate stereotype, I would euphemistically refer them to the 1960s Tremelos hit, Silence is Golden. Dave Chetwyn, chair@ihbc.org.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=