C O N T E X T 1 3 3 : M A R C H 2 0 1 4 29 VALUING HERITAGE although they can ‘grow in strength and complexity’, they can not change laterally or weaken. The tone is set by the use of past and present tenses in statements like the conservation of a place ‘will best sustain its heritage values’ and that ‘they tend to gain value through the resonance of past events with the present’. Calls in the National Planning Policy Framework for local authorities to account for the ‘wider social… benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring’ can be interpreted more flexibly, but the overriding tenet of ‘sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets’ is similar to Conservation Principles. In this model, the sum of pre-defined undiminishing values equals heritage significance, which is either sustained or enhanced through the careful management of the conservation process. This overlooks the potential for conservation itself to produce new communal or other values during and after the active conservation process. In a 2009V&A publication, Miriam Clavir writes that the objective of conserving the social construct of significance through the treatment of physical objects causes conflict that must be relieved by conservators reflecting on social and cultural concepts. Although it can be said that any focus on the communal and social value of heritage encourages such reflection, anotherV&A author, EricaAvrami, elucidates a practical solution by discussing the process of conservation itself as a ‘generator’ of social value. Because this emphasises conservation activity as a catalyser of communal and social value, rather than a process to sustain or enhance it in the heritage, it is a new and genuinely dynamic way of interpreting values. It opens up the exciting possibility that the value of heritage could increase and then decrease, or fluctuate, as a result of the conservation process. It is in this context that we return to the Borobeck Store, the conservation of which was a training project for three construction apprentices for six weeks during 2013. Until this year the building was underused and somewhat neglected, with slipped tiles, no rainwater goods and an inwardly collapsing rear wall.Although the building was no threat to public safety, there was a clear need to relay the roof tiles, rebuild and repoint areas of the masonry, and instate improved methods for drainage and water run-off.With the support of the landowner and the local authority, a conservation architect was engaged to draw up a conservation specification for the building that three apprentices could work to. The proposal aimed to conserve fabric where possible, and otherwise implement like-for-like replacement.This was not with the primary ambition of sustaining the evidential and aesthetic value of the heritage. Instead, the objective for the conservation process was that it should teach the apprentices as much about natural materials, traditional methods and conservation as possible. As such, the apprentices were asked to carefully remove the roof tiles, discarding those that were cracked, while storing good ones for reuse on the building later; inspect all timbers, including the ridge beam, purlins, wall plates and rafters carefully before deciding whether to replace or repair them; reinstate the lath-and-lime roof covering; and use the rectified images to relay the ridge- and pan-tiles, and rebuild specific areas of walling. During the course of the project it became apparent that this was the first time the apprentices had reinstated a lathand-lime roof covering, used hot lime mixes, conducted repairs to rafters, worked to rectified photography, and met a conservation architect. It seemed that the project had been successful in two ways, as the conservation process had enabled important skills development while safeguarding the heritage. The three apprentices were all studying for an NVQ in construction at York College. The work undertaken was recorded in their portfolios and in this way was an important element of their accredited training.That they also learnt skills that can not be assessed, but that contributed to their training more holistically, demonstrates that conservation works can complement mainstream vocational construction training. It also shows that carefully planned participative conservation can itself catalyse social and communal value while addressing the sector’s skills shortages, important in an era of reduced apprenticeship opportunities.All these outcomes, which fulfilled the objectives of the conservation project at the Borobeck Store, came about as a result of the project team seeking to create value through conservation while sustaining it in heritage. Others might maintain that Conservation Principles and the National Planning Policy Framework afford a framework through which the value of conserving heritage can be interpreted, but I disagree.The value of conservation is not compatible with the concept of value as established and increasing because it is much more variable than that. At the Borobeck Store the value of the conservation activity itself peaked during the project, when three young people were able to learn and practice new skills. It is true that the value of the project might be further reaching, as the apprentices continue their careers in conserving and repairing vernacular buildings, but we can not measure that yet. Conversely, and most interestingly of all, the increased attention in the heritage from those who did not participate in conservation, such as members of the public, the conservation architect, trainee architects and further education college tutors, is much less sustainable.Their interest in the site during conservation quickly waned once the project was finished. This leads me to think that the communal values of heritage can be much more flexible than the other three value groups described by English Heritage. How could we strategically plan for and promote conservation as a generator of communal value? Do provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework and Conservation Principles adequately address this, or should they do more? Might a reinterpretation of communal value, as ‘a resonance of past events with the present’ that potentially conveys into the future be beneficial? I hope that Context readers feel motivated to respond with both case studies and discussion that upholds or disproves this perspective.There is no onesize-fits-all solution in heritage conservation. Further reading English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, English Heritage, London Richmond, A and Bracker, A (2009) Conservation: principles, dilemmas and uncomfortable truths, Elsevier in association with the Victoria and Albert Museum Thanks to project funders: English Heritage, Ernest Cook Trust, Historic Houses Association (Yorkshire), NorthYork Moors National Park Authority, Radcliffe Trust,York Foundation for Conservation and Craftsmanship and North York Moors, Coast and Hills LEADER Programme through the Rural Development Programme for England, which is jointly funded by Defra and the European Union. Sophie Norton is regional heritage skills coordinator forYorkshire and is studying for a PhD in conservation studies at the University ofYork.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=