objectivity. In dealing with modern buildings we need to move away from the rigidity and secretiveness of the existing system, and to be more flexible and open. It is also of fundamental importance to allow a building to evolve. Very often today commercial buildings, for example, are completed to a very rigid specification and brief imposed by the client, only to find shortly after completion that the building has teething problems. In addition, the increasing pace of technological change affecting organisations; for example, changes in computer technology and office layout and practices create the need for earlier adaptation than was previously the case. Readers will be familiar with the concept of a Section 106 Agreement (a legal contract between an LPA/owner/ developer, to protect those matters which cannot adequately be protected or provided for under planning conditions). A Section 106 Agreement often provides for such matters as historic landscapes which could be adversely affected by proposed development and to which it is considered appropriate to provide ongoing protection. It is contended that this concept could be developed into a 'Conservation Management Agreement' (CMA) for the protection of outstanding examples of modern architecture, although this would not be tied to an individual planning permission, nor could it ever supersede the need for planning permission, but it would be tied to an individual building. It is suggested that a CMA would only apply to buildings recognised as being of potential architectural and historic importance, I use the word potential to emphasis the need to allow for a period of time to elapse to allow for objectivity and perspective on such decisions, but which are of 30 years of age or less. (I have proposed 30 years in line with the current 30 year rolling programme.) It would be upon buildings of this period that the current rigid listing process impacts the hardest, thus severely inhibiting what must be viewed as the buildings natural evolutionary period. Thirty years would provide a sufficient period for contemplation to ensure adequate objectivity and release from prejudice of current fads and fashions. The introduction of such a mechanism would go a long way to over coming the secrecy of the current system. The owner/occupier would be approached and made aware of the perceived importance of his building. The choice of a CMA or a statutory listing could be offered; the need to retain the back-up measure of statutory listing needs to remain because throughout it must be the protection and preservation of the building which remains of paramount importance. It is proposed that a CMA should include: • a full recorded documentation of the building including copies of original brief and working drawings, amendments made during the course of construction, subsequent amendments/ modifications made, and photographic record of the building as at date of agreement; • an appraisal of the key features/ characteristics of the building and identification of the parameters for substantial alterations; • local planning authorities to be kept fully informed of all alterations made to the building and records updated accordingly; • CMA would not obviate the need for planning permission, but it would, of course, remove the need for listed building consent as the building would not be listed; • the CMA would run for 30 years with reviews every 10 years. The advantages of a CMA would be: • it avoids the rigidity of the existing system and explicitly recognises the need for the buildings to be allowed to evolve, particularly in their early years; • it encourages openness in the debate surrounding the protection and preservation of the built environment; • an increase in the involvement of the process with the owner/occupier would increase awareness and understanding, and encourage a more sympathetic approach to proposed alterations and works generally; • full documentation on the building would be available to allow for informed decisions to be made upon review as to whether statutory listing should be invoked. This of itself would also provide a valuable historic record of the building; • it would allow for a period of natural evolution at some artificial break point, ie the date of listing, by being less restrictive and more open would encourage greater pub\jc support of conservation and its aspirations. It is recognised that such a 'voluntary' arrangement may not be appropriate in all circumstances and thus the advocacy of a 'carrot and stick' approach, an owner/occupier should be offered the option of CMA or a statutory listing: any breach of a CMA to prompt immediate review with the possibility of statutory listing. It is acknowledged that a CMA could not override the need to obtain planning permission in the normal way, but it is recommended that the existence of a CMA should be a material consideration in any decision on a planning application. By way of additional protection, with the exception of a single residential unit, planning permission would be required for demolition, so the building would remain protected from total loss. In addition, in dire circumstances the local authority would retain its powers to issue a Building Preservation Notice if it were considered that the building was in severe risk. Yvonne S Lee BSc(Hons) DipBldgCons ARICS has recently moved from the private sector to become Conservation Officer for Dacorum Borough Council. Her views are entirelypersonal and should not be taken to reflectthe opinion of the Borough Council. MICHAEL PEARCE CONSERVATION CONSULT ANT TRADITIONAL MORTARS & PAINTS Conservation Consultant: Architect and planner; Hon. President of the Association of Conservation Officers; Extensive experience as Vice-Chairman of SAVE Britain's Heritage; Adviser to the Hampshire Buildings Preservation Trust; Chief Planner of English Heritage; and a UK adviser to the Council of Europe. Responsible for many award winning schemes and succesful public local inqumes. Achieving economic conservation by bringing the right people together. Michael Pearce ARIBA, MRTPI, FRSA The Lodge, 52 Hollows Close, Salisbury SP2 8JX Tel/Fax: 01722 334355 CONTEXT 44 Lime, Putty, Mortars and Plasters Limewashes, Distempers and Colourwashes in Historic Colours Consultancy, Analysis, Matching Mixes and Advice Contact Shelagh Gerard or Peter Ellis at ROSE of JERICHO at St. Blaise Ltd. Westhill Barn, Evershot, Dorchester, Dorset. DT2 OLD Tel: 01935 83662 / 83676 Fax: 83017 17
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=