C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 19 S Principles (2008), which underlie current government guidance. As an illustration of differing interpretations of significance, Booth drew heavily on the rather controversial case of Sir Donald Campbell’s Bluebird, in which he sadly died in his attempt to break the water speed record in 1967. It was not until 2001 that the craft was salvaged, having lain at the bottom of Coniston Water since the accident. As an object, it clearly represented the cutting edge of technology of the time, its futuristic design being quite emblematic of its age. For Campbell himself it was a personal tragedy as well as his grave. It was truly a story of heroic failure. On raising the wreckage, a fundamental decision had to be taken: to conserve as found or to restore the craft. It was the strongly held view of the Bluebird Project that it should be restored and displayed in its former state before the fatal crash. This view was not shared by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), which refused to grant-aid the repairs and restoration on two occasions. Clearly there was a difference of approach to significance by the two parties. Was the significance of Bluebird its engineering excellence or was it more important as part of a tragic historical event? The tale has a rather ironic conclusion, because the recently completed Bluebird Wing, built to house the craft, is attached to the Ruskin Museum, a previous recipient of HLF funding. Although this was not the normal story of works to buildings that we are used to, it did illustrate well the difficulties in interpreting and balancing different types of significance. Booth concluded by posing delegates some matters to consider as the day went on. First, how do we identify these differing values or aspects of significance? Second, how can they be measured? Third, and crucially, how can competing claims of significance be weighed against each other? The final question that he asked delegates to mull over was: does it matter? To which there was a silent, but palpable, ‘yes it does’. It was an entertaining and thought-provoking start to the day and a perfect introduction to the conference. David McDonald Designation and assessing significance In her thought-provoking presentation, Emily Gee, head of designation at English Heritage, kicked off a debate on significance and its meaning for historic building protection. Gee’s role with English Heritage means that she is on the front line of the debate on significance. What is it, how do we define it and how do we find consensus? There was no doubt from her presentation that significance is the key factor that underpins the government’s view of the historic environment. Gee pointed to the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) definition of significance, which widens the scope to include interest that may be ‘archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic’. It was the perceived move away from issues of fabric towards more artistic or cultural values that was to animate the debate. Gee gave examples of Brixton Market and the TS Eliot shelter in Margate, where artistic and cultural values were decisive in listing. However, both of these also had significant and coherent architectural value. The more sensational listing of the Abbey Road crossing drove right to the heart of the issue. What is the cultural value of an image? Are the album and the album cover not the real cultural value, rather than a vague and non-original fabric of tarmac and paint? Gee’s further examples of successful listings for John Lennon’s and Paul McCartney’s houses in Liverpool, and the rejection of the 100 Club in London’s Oxford Street, exposed the difficulty in attributing value to modern culture. Gee explained that most listing was now done through thematic surveys. She gave the example of the Great Western Railway, explaining how English Heritage and Network Rail collaborated, with Network Rail undertaking much of the survey work. She emphasised that there was no implicit reason why survey work could not be undertaken by third parties, as long as English Heritage made the final recommendation – although it would be interesting to see how a more commercially-minded organisation might address such collaboration. Gee explained how the Penfold Review and subsequent legislation, out to consultation this summer, were looking to change the way listings work. If approved, new list descriptions would legally define the significance of the asset. Gee stressed that the change to list descriptions would most likely be restricted to new listings and upgrading, as it was estimated it would take 324 years to upgrade the entire list. Gee IHBC secretary and Conservation Studio director Eddie Booth looks at the significance of Sir Donald Campbell’s Bluebird.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=