C O N T E X T 1 3 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 3 5 Developing local lists From JohnWinstone, Conservation Architecture Some very interesting presentations of protocols were made at the recent English Heritage/HELM local management day on Developing Local Lists in Bristol earlier this year. English Heritage’s opening presentation contained no particular recommendations for ratification (aka validation) strategies. It suggested a reliance on historic environment records (why, when some HERs contain patchy information?) over an architectural assessment of historic fabric that is the essential of fieldwork, and apparently English Heritage is not expecting all lists to be ‘the same’. It was not so much the listing criteria that were novel; the diversity of approaches was. One metropolitan borough list of 366 entries had been funded by grant; another had had grant declined (English Heritage needs to step up here); another relied on volunteers from a civic society – with 78 items on a draft list for a town of 10,000 people, including some non-designed views as assets, whereas another small medieval city of national importance had a draft list so far of 12 items (35 individual properties in all) after three years in gestation. On full survey by a group of experts anxious to ensure that the same city does not lose out to incomplete coverage, these returns are shown to be short by a factor of 10. Another presentation stressed the work involved post-ratification in databases, GIS mapping and maintaining the lists. Some local planning authorities were excluding buildings in conservation areas but we were not told how this was justified. Another, a metropolitan borough with a population of 153,000, had received proposals for 322 assets, and ratified 194 for their draft list (a total of some 260odd individual assets). Another historic city of national importance of 450,000 population, with English-Heritagefunded GIS historic mapping already online, is proposing to rely on the public to nominate assets to their map base, and only where nominations proliferated would the planning department consider the local list nominations for their ‘place-making’ qualities. The local planning authority would ratify solely within the planning department and take credence of an asset only if the group value element in the place-making process indicated that the asset(s) should be retained. This would risk an individual asset not being afforded its own intrinsic merit and protection, even if this innovative use of social media does manage to engage the experts. The necessity for Article 4 directions as a means of protection was discussed, and two instances of prior demolition during pre-application negotiations were highlighted in question time.What was missing was any mention of the need for all lists to be the result of comprehensive surveys by experts in order that property owners could not claim the process had been partial, undemocratic and detrimental to positive property values. Planning inspectors will take a dim view of this when local listing enters public consciousness. The question of uniformity is one that may well come back to haunt us.Where comprehensive coverage can not be shown, it seems likely that such lists will be deemed unfit for purpose. JohnWinstone Letters ‘WEWALKED the hundred yards from our house to the sea to find cars parked along both sides of the coast road and a large crowd waiting in the dusk. It seemed unlikely that this stretch of coast had seen such numbers since the Edwardian era, when it had its own steamer pier, several hotels and boarding houses, and boating stations where elderly fellows smoked clay pipes and hired out rowing boats. All gone – as the chimney was soon to be. ‘At 10pm sharp, the top third of it shivered and leant sideways, and suddenly all of it had vanished. Dust clouds rolled out to sea and then, sound being a slowcoach, the thunder of falling rubble reached us.The crowd turned away, disappointed that it was over so quickly but happy, to judge from the laughter in their conversation, to see the chimney gone.’ Ian Jack describing in the Guardian the demolition of the chimney of Inverkip power station, designed by Sir Robert Matthew. Built in the early 1970s, it was described as Scotland’s ‘tallest freestanding building’. Jack welcomed the demolition:‘some of the Clyde’s ruined beauty was restored’. ‘SO PEACEFUL, so humble.’ The description by Lady Carina, daughter of the 17th Duke of Norfolk, and wife of Sir David Frost, of Michelmersh Court in Hampshire, the Grade II* listed country home that the couple put on the market for £5.25 million shortly before Sir David’s death. ‘THIS IS about as legal as my cat’s motorway driving.’ Martin Akehurst, deputy mayor of Henley, commenting in the Henley Standard on the unauthorised demolition of two chimneys on a listed building in Henley.The developer had applied to South Oxfordshire District Council to replace the chimneys, but when conservation consultant Eddie Booth carried out a site visit, he found that they had already been demolished and rebuilt. ‘HOW DOYOU get rid of parking spaces in the city? Jan Gehl says: “No problem, just do it slowly and don’t tell anyone”.’ Alexander Ståhle (@StockholmCyclo) on Twitter
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=