C O N T E X T 9 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 6 35 Director’s cut The dismantling of conservation services in local authorities is now a common occurrence, as focus moves to laudable, but polarised, extremes of our interests, of quality design and historical information. The fact that there is then no dedicated service supporting our historic places means that those places must look to surviving the vagaries of other corporate priorities. The lack of focus on a defined, governmentrecognised benefit for conservation means that we are sidelined. So how do we respond to this? One way is to define better what we do actually contribute.We have done a huge amount of work in this already, as the IHBC website shows, especially in the context of our professional activities. Building on this work, we are pursuing two key lines: developing a register of members whose services we can promote, and creating occupational standards for our work. These last define the skills we bring to our profession. They provide the reason why we, and not some other profession, should be asked to do the things we do. Our involvement with the Heritage Protection Reform in England – detailed on our web site – recognises the benefits it can bring, given the right circumstances. Our support for its underlying principles – local engagement, integrated understanding of historic assets and clarity of process – is fundamental. Victims or drivers in the battle for corporate and local support But we can also see that the research that must inform that process will help us affirm what we know, the value of what we do. Already a key survey has identified the local authority conservation officer, working with committee and community, as a key cog in the complex mechanism that secures the future of our historic places and delivers their potential. If the output of that work lies later in the year, what is the strongest hand we have to play just now? The only place I have come across recently that has had dedicated conservation services reinstated is Perth, in Scotland. Here, years of being overlooked by heritage funders finally got too much for the councillors. They decided they wanted to bring conservation back in to the ‘public’ services they provided for their community, so they reintroduced a conservation team. For those who do not know Perth, it is a pretty wealthy region – in parts extremely rich and architecturally wellendowed – that bridges the Scottish Highlands and its eastern lowlands. The fact that it lost its conservation services in the first place is startling, but the spur for reintroducing the services is chastening. It was not so much the quality of service provided by the council that led to the reversal of policy, for how do we register that? Rather it was the refusal of Heritage Lottery Fund (and, in a more roundabout way, Historic Scotland) to invest in the heritage resources in the local areas. Understandably, those organisations realised that the returns on such investment could not be guaranteed without dedicated management, in the form of a conservation team. So even if it is only through the perversely narrow awareness of historic places as generators of investment, at least conservation bought its way back in. Maybe we should take comfort in the fact that people recognise more clearly the economic benefits of conservation, even if in this case it is little more than a scramble for the shrinking pot of public monies. With so much up in the air over corporate and local support for conservation, for the moment at least it is three cheers for Perth for bringing back conservation and, for standing by the hard reality of conservation needs, four cheers for the HLF. Seán O’Reilly, director@ihbc.org.uk Some of our members consider that the biggest challenge the IHBC faces as a professional institute is explaining to the outside world precisely what our members contribute to the public good. On the one hand conserving historic places is a cultural and educational activity, as we get people to understand why these places should be looked after. Conservation is also about construction and development, even if it demands a much higher standard than the construction sector normally adopts. It requires better management of the built resource – contextsensitive modern design, retention before replacement, high quality materials and workmanship – but it is fundamentally about management and development. Conservation is also a core environmental activity: one ODPM review of skills even classes us with environmental land-managers. In reality, I suppose we do all of these things, and more.That may be why we can end up being seen less as key drivers for the sector than as the acceptable sacrifice to keep budgets balanced. For instance, given the above values, we would seem to be on firm ground if we make the case for the holistic nature of our work. However, if we only join up the little bits that others do, then why should hard-pressed authorities (or government) pay for our work, when through introducing efficiencies they could get the little bits to link together on their own?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=